Skip to main content

Full text of "A treatise on the law of negotiable instruments, including bills of exchange; promissory notes; negotiable bonds and coupons; checks; bank notes; certificates of deposit; certificates of stock; bills of credit; bills of lading; guaranties; letters of credit; and circular notes"

See other formats


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/| 



r 



A TREATISE ON THE LAW 



OP 



NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, 

INCLUDING 

BILLS OP EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES; NEGOTIABLE BONDS 

AND COUPONS; CHECKS; BANK NOTES; CERTIFICATES OF 

DEPOSIT; CERTIFICATES OF STOCK; BILLS OF CREDIT; 

BILLS OF LADING; GUARANTIES; LETTERS OP 

CREDIT; AND CIRCULAR NOTES. 

By JOHN W, DAyfEL, 

OF THK LYNCBBURO (yA.).BlR. 



''Outof theoldfieldes, 
Cometh al this new come." — Chaucer. 

" Non erit alia lex Ronue, alia Athenis, alia nanc, alia posthac, sed et apud omnes 
gentis, et omni tempore, una eademque lex obtinebit. " — ^CiCERO. 



IN TWO VOLUMES. 



Vol. I. 

FIFTH EDITION 

Re-^diUd and enlarged with notes and references to American and Engli^ ctuet 

BY JOHN W. DANIEL, THE AUTHOR, 
AND CHARLES A. DOUGLASS 

OF TBE BAR OF THK DISTRICT OF OOLUMBU, AND 

PROFKSaOR OF THE LAW OF NKOOTIARLB IK8TRUMBMT8 IN 

OKOBOKTOWN CNIVKBBITT, OF WASKIMOTON, D. C 



NEW^TOBK : 

BAKER, VOOBMB A COMPANY, 

1908. 




1' .^ 







QJl-? 



\'\^ 






■ »V I • 1 : 



■SK'^''- .. «. 



Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year eighteen hundred and 

seventy-six, by 

JOHN W. DANIEL, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



Copyright, 1879, 
By JOHN W. DANIEL. 



COPYBIOHT, 1882, 

By JOHN W. DANIEL. 



COFYRIOHT, 1891, 

By JOHN W. DANIEL. 



COPYBIOHT, 1903, 

By baker, VOORHIS & COMPANY. 



;. B. LYON COMPANY 

PRINTERS AND BINDERS 

ALBANY, N. Y. 



TO 

CHARLES O'CONOR, Esq., 

WHO, AS A LAWYER, 

HAS DlAHXriBD HIS PBOrBSaXOK BT HIS UPRIOBT CHARAOTKR, 

AKD 

ILLUSTRATED IT WITH THE TRIUMPHS OF HIS GENIUS, 

▲KD 

WHO, AS A PATRIOT, 

BAS VBTBB FAUfBD DT VZOBLXTT TO TBI PRINCIPLES OF LIBBRTT PROTBOTKD BT LAW, 

THIS WORK 

IS >A/^ITH HIS PERMISSION 

BBSPBCTFULLT INSCRIBED 

BY THE AUTHOR 



PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION. 



MoBE than a quarter of a century has elapsed since this work 
was originally published in 1876, and over eleven years since the 
last edition appeared in 1891. 

Now the fifth edition is required to meet the continuous de- 
mand with which it is honored, and to bring its citations of cases 
up to date. 

The general structure of the text remains unchanged. New 
diversities in the forms of negotiable instruments, and new phases 
of questions arising in practice, have been appropriately dealt with 
in new paragraphs or subsections. 

Some thirty-five hundred new cases have been embodied. They 
were selected from the decisions of the highest courts of the 
British Empire, as well as from those of the highest courts of the 
United States, both Federal and State. In these tribunals the 
work has found favor, and frequent quotation, and it seeks to be 
a true reflex of the law of the subject as understood and applied 
throughout the domains of the English-speaking people. 

Commerce is the pioneer in the assimilation of peoples and laws. 
The negotiable instrument is the leader of the pioneer corps ; and 
it is quite probable that it will produce the first body of homo- 
geneous law that is evolved in the realms of civilization. These 
principles were recognized in the first edition of this work, and 
their triimiph predicted. Since then they have been notably 
illustrated in " The New Negotiable Instruments Law," which, 
up to this period, has been adopted by nineteen States of the 
American Union ; and is now law in the Territory of Arizona and 
the District of Columbia. In the appendix of this edition this 
new statute will be found. 

By reason of other exacting employments, the author could not 
give to the preparation of this edition throughout the close, per- 
sonal attention, which he bestowed upon its predecessors. He has, 
however, himself, examined and annotated many of the new cases. 
This important work for the most part has been done by Mr. 
Douglass. Our labors have been assisted by E. S. Douglass, Esq., 
and by Messrs. Stanhope Henry, Levi H. David, and Joseph D. 

(V) 



VI PEEFACE TO THE FOUETH EDITION. 

Wright, all members of the Waahington (D. C.) bar — gentlemen 
whose character and ability give ample assurance of their fidelity. 

In the preface to the fourth edition, issued in 1891, the author 
expressed his sense of the loss suffered by the then recent death 
of Mr. Peter C. Baker, who had long been the honored head of 
the publishing-house. Since then Mr. Voorhis, in the serenity of 
a well-spent life, has also departed. The " Baker and Voorhis 
Company," which has succeeded the old firm, preserve the names 
of the founders in their title, and attest by their courtesy, prompt- 
itude, and fairness, that they likewise preserve their virtues. 

As commerce moves to greater conquests, the negotiable instru- 
ment will maintain itself in the forefront, as the harbinger of 
uniform law. This work was the first to treat the subject in its 
ample scope. So far it has upheld itself in the good opinion of 
the legal profession, and of enlightened laymen, and the hope is 
indulged that it may long continue to be worthy of confidence. 

JNO. W. DANIEL. 
CHAS. A. DOUGLASS. 

November 20, 1902. 



PEEFAOE TO THE FOUETH EDITIOK". 



The first edition to this work appeared in 1876, the second in 
1879, and the third in 1882. The last edition has been for some 
months exhausted and out of print, and the fourth is now issued 
in response to continuous and unfaltering demand. 

The author is gratified with the evidences of the usefulness of 
his essay afforded in the reception given it by the profession in 
this country and in foreign lands, and in the extensive and favor- 
able citations of the text by the highest courts. Dissent from its 
doctrines has been but seldom expressed, and then only in those 
vexed questions which have elicited conflicting adjudications. 

Some two thousand new cases, taken from over eight hundred 
volumes of Keports (State, Federal, English, and Colonial), are 
herein cited, and the newly added matter embraces over one hun- 
dred printed pages. But the comprehensive plan of the treatise 
was such that but little emendation of the text has been found 
necessary, and the amplifications are the result of new. illustra- 



PBEFACE TO THE-THIBD EDITION. Vll 

tiona and diversities of established principles rather than of the 
evolution of new ones. With forty-four States now composing 
the Federal Union, no one just like another in its system of laws ; 
with the Federal jurisprudence assuming a certain caste of its 
own, and with new organizations, ramifications, and phases of 
business arising out of our rapid and progressive development, no 
lawyer can keep abreast with the demands of his profession with- 
out attention to contemporary decisions. Nevertheless, the scien- 
tific basis of the law merchant, and the elastic, equitable spirit 
which pen'ades it, provide the solvent of difficulty for all com- 
plexities and novelties of circTimstance ; and amongst the new 
cases* there are but few not referable to principles fixed by pre- 
cedent, and heretofore expounded in this work. 

In the collection and digest of cases for this edition, I have been 
greatly assisted by the diligent and discriminating labors of my 
valued friend, Mr. Chapmax W. Maupix, of the Bedford City 
Bar, to whom I render my acknowledgments. 

Since the last edition appeared Mr. Peter C. Baker, the 
senior of the firm of Messrs. Baker, Voorhis & Co., its publish- 
ers, has departed this life. He was an honest man who has left an 
excellent name, and more than this, a liberal-minded and accom- 
plished gentleman, with an enthusiasm for his vocation beyond 
its mercantile aspects. Out of my business relations with his 
house grew a friendship for him which strengthened with years, 
and I mourn his loss in common with all who knew him. His 
worthy associates in business have my thanks for their uniform 
courtesy and fair dealing. 

J. W. D. 

Lynchburg, Va., April, 1891. 



PEEFAOE TO THE THIED EDITION. 



Since the last edition of this work was issued, just three years 
ago, interest in the subject of " Negotiable Instruments " has in 
nowise abated, but steadilv increased. It ranks now second to 
no title of the law. This is shown by the multitude of cases which 
appear in the reports and the legal periodicals, and by the number 



Vlll FBEFACE TO THE THIBD EDITION. 

of books published on Bills and Notes, and cognate subjects. It 
it also shown by the fact that the second edition of this treatise 
was more speedily exhausted than the first, and by the numerous 
orders which have anticipated the appearance of the third. The 
reason is obvious. This is an age of rapid transit, of vast material 
development, and of ever-extending commerce. And Negotiable 
Instruments are the instruments of commerce, their forms and 
varieties taking shape to suit its usages and needs. 

As rapidly as was consistent with the engagements of an active 
practice at the bar, the author has prepared this new edition ; and, 
gratefully appreciative of the favor with which its predecessors 
were received by the Bench and Bar, he hopes that it will be found 
more useful in assisting their labors and more worthy of their 
commendation. 

The plan and framework of the original text have imdergone 
but slight alterations. But the result of the most recent and best 
considered adjudications have been embodied in it; some of the 
chapters (notably those on Certificates of Stock and Bills of 
Lading) have been considerably enlarged; many passages have 
been rewritten where elaboration seemed desirable; and citations 
of over fifteen hundred cases (for the most part new ones) have 
been added. 

The decisions of the higher courts (Federal and State) of the 
United States, and of England, have been the chief sources of 
quotation; but on important questions, and especially where the 
opinions seemed to possess more than ordinary merit, the adjudica- 
tions of the Canadian, and other provincial courts, have been 
cited. 

To present the Law of Negotiable Instruments as it is to-day 
interpreted has been the author's design, and to accomplish it he 
has not only consulted the reports, but also the advanced publica- 
tions of judicial opinions in legal transcripts and journals. His 
researches have been greatly facilitated by the courtesies of the 
excellent publishers of the work, Messrs. Bakek, Voorhis & Co., 
and to them he again renders his thanks. 

J. W. D. 

Lynchbubg, Va., Jult/y 1882. 



PBEFACE TO THE FIBST EDITION. IX 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



The rapid sale of the first edition of this work has demonstrated 
the correctness of the opinion expressed by its auUior, that a 
treatise on the subject of '^ Negotiable Instruments " was a 
desideratum to the legal profession ; and the flattering utterances 
with which it has been received by the Bench and Bar induce him 
to hope that he has not altogether failed in his effort to supply it. 

In response to continuous demands, a second edition is now 
put forth, containing one hundred and four pages of new matter, 
and citations of over a thousand cases not embraced in the first 
edition. The important adjudications of the English and 
American courts since the spring of 1876 have been carefully 
collated, and the text presents, as the author hopes, a faithful 
record of " The Law of Negotiable Instruments," as it is now 
interpreted and practiced. 

To those who have so generously encouraged and favored his 
work the author returns his thanks, and to his publishers, Messrs. 
Bakeb, Vooehis & Co., he begs leave to renew the assurances of 
his highest consideration. 

J. W. D. 

Lynchbubo, Va., June, 1879. 



PREFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. 



Whew Lobd Holt, in the year seventeen hundred and three, 
indignantly denied that promissory notes payable to bearer were 
negotiable and inveighed against the " obstinacy and opinionative- 
ness of the merchants who were endeavoring to set the law of 
Lombard street above the law of Westminster Hall," he had no 
prophetic vision of the great part which negotiable instruments 
where to play in the transactions of commerce, and little dreamed 
that the struggling idea of Lombard street was destined to develop, 



X PEBFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. 

expand, and diversify itself, until it overspread the civilized globe. 
From that day to this, negotiable instruments have been a subject 
of such rapid and continuous growth that the sheets of the various 
compilations on the subject have scarcely dried from the printer's 
hand, ere they have successively become historic records rather 
than mirrors of existing things. It is true that certain general 
principles permeate the law affecting every variety of negotiable 
instruments, and that in Malynes, Marius, MoUoy, and Beawes, 
we may yet find the rudiments of that system which in our own 
day has received ample illustration from the hands of Story and 
Parsons ; but the pioneer who stood on the borders of our western 
civilization thirty years ago, and who to-day sees the same land- 
scape, then covered with primeval forests, or stretching wide in 
solitary prairies, now brilliant with gorgeous cities, and teeming 
with the industries of crowded millions, recognizes a change not 
more marked than that which has been exhibited in the rapid and 
diversified development of the subject of our treatise. And the 
development was scarcely more marked in the long period elapsing 
between the days of the first commentators to whom we have re- 
ferred and the last, than it has been since the latter put forth their 
admirable works. Chancellor Kent remarks, with an evident 
spirit of congratulation, that " the law of negotiable paper has at 
length become a science which can be studied with infinite advan- 
tage in the various codes, treatises, and judicial decisions, for in 
them every possible view of the doctrine in all its branches has been 
considered, its rules established, and its limitations accurately 
defined." But when Chancellor Kent wrote his Commentaries, 
such a thing as a coupon bond was unknown in the United States. 
When Story sent forth his treatises on Bills and Notes from Cam- 
bridge, it was yet a feeble adventurer, timidly feeling its way on 
the stock exchange. And although when Professor Parsons pub- 
lished his work in 1862, it had been recognized as a negotiable 
instrument, and was becoming familiar to the public eye, the law 
concerning it was yet in such an inchoate state that a few pages 
comprehended all that he saw fit to say about it. Now there is no 
more important figure in financial circles than a coupon bond. 
There is scarcely a town or county in the United States that has 
not become interested in it, and the law relating to it has grown 
into an important title, which would fully justify its embodiment 
in a separate and independent work. We find, also, an increasing 
disposition to impart certain negotiable qualities to instruments 



PBEFAGE TO THE FIEST EDITION. XI 

and docnmentary evidences of title, which, by the common law, are 
as devoid of such qualities as any chattel sold behind the counter 
of a merchant. In some of the States, bonds are placed on the 
same footing as promissory notes. In some of them deeds to real 
estate and docketed judgments are just as negotiable as bills of 
exchange ; and in all of diem, so to speak, the spirit of negotiabil- 
ity is enlarging its bounds, extending its influence, and impressing 
itself upon mercantile transactions. 

These reflections have led to the production of this work. It is 
the first effort to embrace in one treatise a classification of all nego- 
tiable instruments, with an exposition of the law touching each 
variety of them. And this has seemed to us the most convenient 
and philosophical mode of presenting and expounding the law, 
notwithstanding the views expressed by that great jurist and 
author. Justice Story, who followed, as he favored, a different 
plan. To him it seemed (as he states in the preface of his work 
on Bills of Exchange), that "great practical inconvenience'' 
would result " from uniting and intermixing the doctrines respect- 
ing bills of exchange and promissory notes in one and the same 
treatise " ; and if his idea be accepted, still greater practical incon- 
venience would result from gathering under one roof all the mem- 
bers of the negotiable family. But his own learned productions, 
to our mind, rebut his theory. Whole sections and pages — and, 
indeed, we may almost say chapters — of his treatise on Bills are 
literally transcribed in the succeeding one on Notes. And while 
there are certain distinctions always to be observed between thp 
two classes of papers, there are more identities in^ than differences 
between, them ; and the differences can always be readily recog- 
nized and defined. To use Tennyson's phrase, they are " alike in 
difference." Indeed, not only may bills and notes be conveniently 
treated in conjunction with each other (as in fact they have been 
most successfully treated by Bayley, Byles, Thomson, and Par- 
sons), but their kindred, which are "bone of the same bone and 
flesh of the same flesh," are like the sciences, which. Lord Bacon 
says, " dwell sociably together." Checks, so closely assimilated 
to bills of exchange that they are sometimes called " peculiar kinds 
of bills," may be fully treated under the same cover with bills, by 
simply pointing out their peculiar differences and uses. 

Coupon bonds, so nearly identical with promissory notes that 
they might be fitly termed "peculiar kinds of notes," may be 
thoroughly explained by exhibiting their peculiar variations from 



XU PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

them in form, and in the functions which they fulfil. And every 
species of instrument, really or qtuisi negotiable, may be either 
thoroughly expounded or, at least, aptly illustrated by a delinea- 
tion of its lines of departure from the general principles which 
apply to these two great species of the negotiable genus, bills of 
exchange and promissory notes. 

Such, at least, have been the considerations which inspired the 
undertaking, the fruit of which is now with diffidence submitted to 
a practical and critical, but liberal profession. Composed in hours 
snatched from other exacting labors of the oflBce and the bar, the 
author can not hope that it will be found free from many crudities 
of style and other more serious imperfections ; but if it contain 
aught of merit, he feels sure that an enlightened profession will 
not fail to discern it, nor to apply it as equitable offset to those 
defects which only the amplest resources of leisure and learning 
could avoid. 

To Mr. P. C. Nicholas, Librarian of the Supreme Court of 
Appeals of Virginia, the author is much indebted for many courte- 
sies extended and many facilities afforded him, while pursuing his 
investigations, in the ample collection of books under his charge ; 
and he begs leave here to acknowledge his obligation and record his 
thanks. He would be lacking in appreciation and gratitude did 
he not also here express to his publishers, Messrs. Baker, Voorhis 
& Co., of New York, his sense of the liberal and unremitting kind- 
ness with which they have aided and encouraged his work. They 
have been lacking in nothing that fairness could ask of them, or 
that an accommodating spirit could suggest to them ; and he only 
trusts that the result may leave them no cause to regret their own 
generous course. 

J. W. D. 

Lynchburg, Va., April, 1876. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS OF VOL I. 



BOOK L 

THE MAKING OF THE INSTRUMENT. 



CHAPTER I. ,Aoi 

Natuse, History, and Uses of Negotiable Instbuherts, ... 1 

SionoN I. Nature, origin, and history of bills and notes, ... 1 

II. Foreign and inland bills, 7 

III. The effect of a bill of exchange. Whether or not it is an 

assignment, 14 

rV. Donatio morti» causa, 27 

CHAPTER II. 

DBinaTioN AND Essential Requisites of Bills and Notes, 37 

Section I. The paper mast be opened, that is, unsealed, ... 39 

II. Certainty as to the engagement to pay, .... 42 

III. Certainty as to the fact of payment, 47 

IV. Certainty as to the amount to be paid, 61 
y. Certainty as to the medium of payment, which must be 

money, 65 

VI. The contract must be only for the payment of money, 70 

VII. Delivery, 82 

CHAPTER III. 

Pormal Requisites of Bills and Notes, 03 

Section I. Formality in respect to style and material, ... 03 

II. Formal elements and phrases of bills and notes, . . 105 

III. The several parts of a foreign bill called a set, . . 136 

CHAPTER IV. 

Staicps upon Negotiable Instruments, 130 

(Xlll) 



XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER V. PAGE 
Ibbbouiab, Ambiguous, aiyd Fictitious Instbuments; and Instbu- 

ments exbcuted in blank, 150 

Section I. Irregular and ambiguous instruments, . .150 

II. Bills and notes to which there are fictitious or nonexisting 

parties, 158 

III. Negotiable instruments executed in blank, . . . 163 

CHAPTER VI. 

Memos AND A xtpon Bills and Notes, and Collatebal Agbeements, . 173 

Section I. Memoranda upon bills and notes, ..... 173 
II. Collateral agreements respecting bills and notes, . .178 

CHAPTER VII. 

Considebation of Negotiable Instbuments, 182 

Section I. What instruments import a consideration, . . .182 
II. By what laws the legality of consideration is determined. 

Confederate obligations, 188 

III. Between what parties the consideration is open to inquiry, 191 

IV. What are sufficient and legal considerations, . . . 199 
V. What are illegal considerations, 218 

VI. Partial want, failure, and illegality of consideration, . 230 

VII. Renewal bills and notes. How illegality may be purged, . 236 



BOOK II 



WHO MAY BE PARTIES. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Pebsons Pabtially OB Wholly Disqualified, 241 

Section I. Lunatics, imbeciles, and drunkards, 241 

II. Aliens and alien enemies, 247 

III. Infants, 252 

IV. Married women, 262 

V. Persons under guardianship, and in bankruptcy, . 278 



TABL£ OF CONTENTS. XV 

CHAPTER IX. PMs. 

FiDtrciARiES AS Pabtizs to Bills and Notes, 280 

CHAPTER X. 

AcETiTS AS Pasties to Negotiable Instbumsnts, 288 

Section I. Competency and authority of the agent. Express authority 

and general principles of liability, .... 288 
II. Implied authority of the agent, 300 

III. How agent should sign; and how instrument construed and 

parties' liabilities determined, 306 

IV. Liability of agent who draws on account of his principal, or 

indorses to him, 317 

V. Ratification by principal of agent's unauthorized acts, 323 

CHAPTER XI. 

Banks and otkeb Agents fob Negotiation ob Collection of Negotia- 
ble Instbttments, 327 

Section I. Banks as collecting agents. What constitutes agency, and 

of whom they are agents, 327 

II. Rights and duties of banks or other agents for collection, . 334 

III. The manner of placing commercial paper in bank for collec- 

tion, and the rights of the collecting bank, and of the 
^ depositor, 344 

IV. How far a bank is liable for default of a notary, sub-agent, 

or correspondent bank, 355 

V. Remedy of the holder of the paper against collecting 

agent, 300 

CHAPTER XII. 

Pabtnzbs as Pabties to Negotiable Instbuments, .... 365 

Secttidn I. Nature and varieties of copartnership, .... 365 

II. The authority of a copartner to bind the firm, . 368 

III. Formal signature of the firm's name, 373 

IV. Accommodation, private, and prohibited transactions of 

copartner, 380 

V. The effect of a dissolution of the firm, .... 388 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Pbivaxe Cobpobations as Pabties to Negotiable Instbuments, . . 399 

Section I. Authority of the corporation to execute the instrument, 399 
II. Authority of the agent in law and in fact to bind the cor- 
poration, 408 

m. Interpretation of the instrument, 421 



XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER XIV. 



FAGB 



Municipal Gobfobations as Pasties to Negotiable Ikstbumsnts, . 443 

CHAPTER XV. 

Dbafts OB Wabbantb of one Cobfobate Officeb ufon Anotheb, . 449 

Section I. Drafts or warrants of private corporations, 449 

II. Drafts or warrants of municipal corporations, . .451 

CHAPTER XVI. 

The Fedebal and State Qovebnments as Pabties to Negotiable 

Instbuments, 458 

Section I. General principles of governmental liability, and liability 

of agents, 458 

II. State securities made receivable for taxes, .... 468 



BOOK III 

THE NEGOTIATION OF THE INSTRUMENT. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

Pbesentment fob Acceptance, 472 

Section I. Nature of, and necessity for, presentment for acceptance, 472 

II. Formalities of presentment for acceptance, . . 474 

III. Time of presentment for acceptance, 480 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

Acceptance of Bills of Exchange, 490 

Section I. The nature of acceptance, 490 

II. What bills require acceptance, and by whom and when they 

should be accepted, . . .... 491 

III. Form and varieties of acceptance. Express and implied 

acceptance, 501 

IV. Verbal and written acceptance, 508 

V. Absolute, conditional, variant, and qualified acceptance, . 511 

VI. Acceptance for honor, or supra protest, . .519 

VII. The effect of acceptance, 527 

VIII. Extinguishment of acceptor's obligation, .... 534 



• • 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XVll 

CHAPTER XIX. ,Ao« 

Pbomisks to Accept Bills of Exchaivoe. How A ffected bt the 

Statute of Frauds, 640 

Section I. Written and verbal promises to accept existing and non- 
existing bills, 540 

II. How parol acceptance is affected by the Statute of Frauds, 551 

CHAPTER XX. 

PRE8EIVTME17T FOB PAYMENT, 556 

Section I. By whom presentment for payment must be made, 557 

II. To whom presentment for payment must be made, . 570 

III. Time of presentment for payment, 575 

IV. Days of grace, and computation of time, .... 588 
V. Place of presentment for payment, . . • . . 600 

VI. Mode of presentment for payment, 616 

CHAPTER XXI. 

Transfeb of Bills and Notes by Indorsement, 625 

Section I. Nature of the contract of indorsement, and liabilities of 

indorser, 628 

II. By whom, and to whom, indorsement or assignment may 

be made, 642 

III. Form and varieties of indorsement, 647 

IV. Whether or not the party is indorser, maker, or guarantor, 671 
V. How far parol evidence is applicable to ascertained indorse- 
ments, 689 

VI. The time and date of transfer, 69& 

CHAPTER XXII. 

Transfer of Bills and Notes by Assignment, 707 

Section I. Liability of the assignor of the legal title, .... 708 

II. Liability of the assignor of the equitable title, . . 725 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

The Sale aito Discount of Bills and Notes, and the Amount of 

Reooveby, 733 

Section I. The validity of the original negotiation, .... 733: 

II. The amount of recovery against the maker or acceptor, 738 
III. The validity of the transfer, and amount of recovery against 

the transferrer, 750 

Vol. I — ii 



XVIU TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXIV. ,^0, 

Natube and Rights of a Bona Fide Holder ob Purchaseb of Bills 

AND Notes, 75S 

Section I. Bona fides, and gross negligence, 759 

II. What is meant by "valuable consideration/' . 767 

III. The ordinary or usual course of business, . . .771 

IV. The phrase ** before maturity," 775 

V. What is meant by " purchaser without notice," . . 782 

VI. When purchaser or holder stands on same footing as his 

transferrer, 800 

VII. The burden of proof as to bona fide ownership, . . 806 

CHAPTER XXV. 
Holder of Bills and Notes Transferred to Him as Collateral 

Security; and Holder of Bills and Notes Secured by Mort- 
gage, 820 

Section I. Rights and duties of holder of negotiable instruments as 

collateral security for a debt, 820 

II. Holder of negotiable instruments secured by mortgage, 842 

• 

CHAPTER XXVl. 

Rights of a Bona Fide Holder or Purchaser of Negotiable Instru- 
ments Originating in Fraud, Duress, or Violation of Authority, 849 

Section I. Holder of negotiable instruments completed, but not de- 
livered, 849 

II. Holder of negotiable instruments incomplete and unde- 
livered, 852 

III. Holder of negotiable instruments intrusted to another with 

blanks, 854 

IV. Holder of negotiable instruments written over blank sig- 

natures, 857 

V. Holder of negotiable instruments procured by imposition on 

infirm or illiterate persons, 858 

VI. Holder of negotiable instruments executed under mistake 

and misrepresentation, 862 

VII. Holder of negotiable instruments delivered by third party 

in violation of instructions, 869 

VIII. Holder of negotiable instruments executed under duress, . 875 
IX. When holder of negotiable instruments is protected by 

estoppel in pais, 878 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX 

CHAPTER XXVII. »Aot 

Tkk Confoct or Law. The Law of Place as Applicable to Nego- 
tiable INSTBUMSIVTS, 883 

SKcnoN I. Qeneral principles of the law of place, .... 883 

II. Lem loci contractus, 888 

III. Lew domicilii, 893 

IV. Lex loci solutionis, ........ 895 

V. Lex fori, 898 

VI. Lex loci rei sitw, 905 

VII. By what law the liability of the maker, acceptor, drawer, or 

indorser is determined, 906 

VIII. By what law the validity and effect of transfer, and the 

rights of the holder are determined, . . .914 
IX. By what law the formalities in respect to presentment, pro- 
test, and notice are governed, 918 

X. The revenue laws of other countries. Law applicable to 

stamps upon negotiable instruments, . . - . 923 
XI. Law applicable to the currency of payment, and interest 

and damages, 925 

, 935 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 

The References are to Section. — §$ 1 *o 925, inclusive, are in Vol. I, the 

residue in Vol. II, 



Abat V. Rion, 987. 

Abbe r. Eaton, 1729, 1729a. 

Abel r. Sutton, d70a, 371, 371a. 

Abbey t\ Cbase, 307. 

Abbott r. Agr. Bank, 1691. 

r. Bailey, 248. 

V. Douglas, 88. 

r. Hendricks, 81a, 174, 199a. 

r. McKinley, 252, 253. 

r. Nortb Andoper, 422. 

r. Rose, 844. 

r. Striblen, 1473. 
Abeel r. Seymour, 206. 
Abel r. Sutton, 370a, 371a, 683. 
Able r. Alexanaer, 1316, 1317, 1317a, 

• 1319. 
Ablowich r. Greenrille Nat. Bank, 742. 
Abom r. Bosworth, 1173, 1464, 1478, 

1481. 
Abrabam r. Dubois, 14. 
Abrahams v. Mitchell, 532, 702. 
Abrama r. Union Nat. Bank, 1607a. 
Absolem v. Marks, 683. 
Ackland r. Pearce, 674, 1051. 

V. Blethen, 688, 692. 
Acraman p. Cc~per, 1708a. 
Adair r. England, 1373, 1378, 1417. 

9. Lenox, 1233a. 
Adams v. Adams, 197. 

r. Addington, 10a, 62a. 

9. Blethem, 688c. 

r. Boyd, 51, 452. 

V. Cordis, 917, 1454. 

p. Darby, 452, 1076. 

V. East River SaF. Inst., 1524. 

r. First Nat. Bank of Winston, 326. 

r. J*'lanagan, 291. 

f?. Frye, 1392. 

r. Gregg, 543. 

r. Hayes, 1340. 

V. Huggins, 715, 1760. 

r. Imp. Commission, 326, 3265. 

r. Jones, 667, 721, 748, 1785a. 

r. Kii^, 99. 

r. Leland, 1145. 

V. Oakes, 1230. 



Adams v. Otterback, 623, 661. 

V, Reeves, 1226. 

V. Robinson, 62, 1644. 

V. Soule, 187. 

r. Torbert, 996. 

V. Tucker, 1251. 

V. Wilson, 81. 

t*. Wordley, 517. 

r. Wright, 1017, 1038. 
Adams Bai£ v. Anthony, 1339. 

V. Jones, 1190, 1785. 
Adams Oil Co. v. Christmas & Hughes, 

999. 
Addy r. Grix, 688a. 
Adle V, Metroger, 1335a. 
Adler v. Sargent, 834, 834a, 834b. 
Adoue V. Fox, 551. 
Adrian v. McCaskill, 795, 1202<?. 
JEtna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank» 

1611a. 
JEtna Nat. Bank v. Water Power, 1743. 
w^tna Bank v. Winchester, 1384. 
iEtna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 

326a, 1636. 
JEtna Nat. Bank v. Insurance Co., 386. 
African Society v. Varick, 399. 
Agan V. McManus, 1163. 
Agawan Nat. Bank r. Downing, 1623. 
Agens V. Agens, 36a. 
Agnel V. Ellis, 533, 537. 
Agnew V, Alden, 203. 

V. Bank of Gettysburg, 445. 
Agra V. Masterman's Bank, 1798. 
Agranet r. McQueen, 831o. 
Agricultural Bank v. Commercial Bank, 
341, 343. 

V. Burr, 1708a. 
Ahern v, Goodspeed, 753a. 
Aiken v. Jones, 334. 

V. Marine Bank, 685. 
Aillet V. Woods, 205. 
Ainis V. Ayres, 1730. 
Ainslee r. Wilson, 1687. 
Ainsworth v. Creke, 318. 
Airey v. Pearson, 1099*. 
Airy v. Nelson, 997. 



(xxl) 



XXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked 



Apperson v. Union Bank, 666, 1059, 

1060, 1066, 1070. 
Apple V. Lesser, 1035, 1039, 1040. 
Appleby v. Beddolph, 41. 
Appl^arth v, Abbott, 959, 1103. 

17. Robertson, 203. 
Appleton V. Parker, 1260, 1267. 
Arayo v, Currill, 891, 891a. 
Arbouin v. Anderson, 175, 774. 
Arbuekle v. Templeton, 94, 1332. 
Arcangelo v. Thompson, 1052. 
Archer r. Bamford, 193. 

r. McCray, 207. 
Archibald v. Argall, 1260. 
Arend r. Smith, 1316. 
Arents v. Commonwealth, 441, 724a, 

782, 1489, 1490, 1490a, 1496a, 

1600, 1501a, lo05, 1506, 1507, 

1513, 1753, 1754, 1769, 1747a, 

1777, 1798. 
Argenbright v. Campbell, 32. 
Argo Steamship Co. v. Leago, 1742. 
Arlington v. Hinds, 1187. 
Armat v. Union Bank, 1480. 
Armfield v. AUport, 128, 688. 

V. Tate, 234. 
Armington v. Gas Light Co., 327. 
Armistead v. Armistead, 043, 645. 

t\ Brooke, 1262. 

V. Butler, 1428. 

V. Ward, 1260, 1272, 1317, 1329. 
Armitt v. Braeme, 83. 
Armour Bros. v. Riley County Bank, 

698<i, 717. 
Armour v. Michigan C. R. Co., 1733, 

1733a. 
Arms V. Ashley, 1684. 
Armstrong v. American Exch. Bank, 9. 

V. Brolaski, 1596. 

V. Cache Valley Land Co., 262, 
1292. 

t?. Chadwick, 1048, 1147. 

V. Chemical Nat. Bank, 334a. 

f7. Christiani, 983. 

V, Fitzpatrick, 41. 

V. Gibson, 759, 764. 

V, Harshman, 145, 703, 707. 

In re, 336, 496, 698(2. 

V. Kirkpatrick, 400. 

17. Nat. Bank, 139. 

17. Noble, 725. 

V, Pratt, 1432. 

17. Scott, 80, 790. 

C7. S. Express Co., 196. 

r. Thurston, 983, 1172. 

t?. Toler, 200, 866. 
Armstrong, Recr. 17. Warner, 1435a, 

1437. 
Armsworth i7. Scotten, 1672a. 
Arnold t7. Camp, 1299, 1300. 

17. Cheque Bank, 13725. 



Arnold v. Dresser, 466, 694, 653, 1149, 
1161. 

17. Jones, 1398. 

17. Kinloch, 964, 983. 

17. Lane, 790, 812, 819. 

17. Potter, 894. 

17. Revonet, 254. 

17. Richmond iron Works, 213. 

17. Rock River, etc., R. Co., 51. 

V. Ruggles, 1708a. 

17. Sprague, 108, 186, 303, 305 
663. 

V. Stackpole, 303, 305. 

c. Wilts, 203. 
Arnot 17. Bingham, 336. 

V. Erie Ry. Co., 386. 

17. Symonds, 688, 713(1. 
Arnott 17. Redferne, 918. 

17. Woodburn, 726. 
Arpin r. Owens, 174a. 
Artizan Bank v. Park Bank, 899. 
Ashby 17. Ashby, 102. 
Ashe 17. Beasley & Co., 926, 927, 955, 

992. 
Ashford 17. Robinson, 1760. 
Ashley 17. Bd. of Supervisors, 1531, 
1540. 

17. Gunton, 1119. 
Ashpitel V. Bryan, 1352a. 
Ashton 17. Frecstun, 1290, 1291. 

17. Pye, 1286. 
Ashuelot Mfg. Co. v. Marsh, 394. 
Ashurst V. Bank of Australia, 680, 
1506, 1606. 

17. Royail Bank, 724a. 
Asplialt Paving Co., 1361. 
Aspinall v. Wake, 262, 535. 
Aspinwall v. Commissioners, 1524. 
Assurance Society i7. Edmonds, 709. 
Atcheson 17. Scott, 49. 
Atherton v. Marcy, 186. 
Atkins 17. Blake, 775, 1468. 

17. Cobb, 699. 

17. Owen, 1288. 

17. Plympton, 122. 
Atkinson 17. Bennet, 712, 714. 

17. Brooks, 827« 829(1, 830. 

17. Hawden, 1411. 

17. Mank, 161, 514. 
Atlanta Guano Co. r. Hxmt, 8316. 
Atlanta Nat. Bank 17. Burke, 1369. 

17. Fertilizing Co., 1799. 

17. George, 1643. 
Atlantic Bank 17. Merchants' Bank, 

1607, 1610. 
Atlantic City Street Ry. Co. i?. Am. 

Car Co., 206. 
Atlantic Nat Bank i\ Douglas, 1211. 

17. Franklin, 831c. 
Atlantic, etc., M. Ins. Co. 17. Boies, 

833. 



References are to 
paragrotphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXV 



Atlantie State Bank r. Sav«ry, 365, 

366. 
Atlantic Tr. Co. r. Kinderhook k 

Hudson Rj. Co., 1489. 
Atlas Bank r. Doyle, 818, 832a. 
Atlas Nat. Bank r. Holm, 196, 197, 
774, 775. 

t?. S«i?«ry, 365. 
Atlas Steamboat Co. v. Columbian 

Land Co., 1221. 
Atna Nat. Bank r. Fourth Nat. Bank, 

326a. 
Attenborough v, McKenzie, 480. 
Attorney-General v. Continental Life 
Ins. Co., 16a, 1644. 

r. Life & Fire Ins. Co., 382. 
Atwater v. Farthing, 704. 

r. Hazledon, 996. 

r. Munnings, 276, 280, 290, 299, 
487. 

V. Rattenbury, 1182. 
Atwood r. Bank of Chillicothe, 1682. 

i>. Dumas, 382. 
Aubert r. Maze, 200. 

r. Walsh, 1648. 
And r. Magruder, 1316. 
Aude V. Dixon, 854. 
Auerbach r. Le Soeur Mill Co., 32, 
1537. 

r. Pritchett, 65. 
Augusta Bank r. Augusta, 1495, 

1523. 
Augusta Nat. Bank t*. He wins, 1458. 
Augusta Wine Co. r. Weippert, 357. 
Aultman r. Rittershoeffer, 62. 
Aultman Co. r. Heffner, 1789. 
Aultman, Miller k Co. r. Leichting, 

177, 183. 
Aultman k Taylor Co. r. Gunderson, 
91. 

r. Smith, 1316. 
Auriol r. Thov s, 1438. 
Aurora City r. West, 807, 1500, 1513, 

1514, 1523, 1557. 
Aurora Nat. Bank r. Dils, 1612a. 
Austell t. Rice, 196. 
Austen r. United States Nat. Bank, 

812. 
Austin r. Boyd, 713. 

r. Bunyard, 1578. 

r. Custis, 1329. 

r. Doriiin, 1317. 

r. Gruner, 778. 

r. Hamilton, 1789a. 

V. Imus, 920. 

p. Rodman, 1076. 

r. Vandermark, 365. 

r. Whitlock, 32. 
Austin, Tomlinson & Webster Mfg. 

Co. V, Heiser et al., 760. 



Auten V, Mamstee Nat. Bank, 331, 

390, 392, 636, 769tt, 1431, 1422. 
Acerett's Admr. v. Booker, 49, 50, 104, 

161, 162. 
A\«rill V. Second Nat. Bank, 724a. 
Avery t\ Miller, 721. 

V, Stewart, 620, 627. 
Ayer r. Hutchings, 1233. 
Ayers v. Burns, 225. 

V. Doying, 791. 

r. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 333. 
Aymar v. Beers, 454, 478, 1125. 

t\ Sheldon, 899, 908, 909, 910, 
919. 
Ayrault v. McQueen, 827. 

r. Pacific Bank, 341, 342. 
Ayres, In re, 448. 

V. Milroy, 855. 
Ayrey r. Feamsides, 60. 

B. 
Babbitt v, Moore, 1424. 
Baboock, In re, 1339. 

r. Beman, 302, 415, 855. 

V. Bianchard, 1343. 

V. Bryant, 1785&. 

V. Loring, 303. 

V. Stone, 354. 

r. Young, 834, 834a. 
Babylon t. Duttera, 121.'). ^ 

Bacchus r. Richmond, 1206. 
Bach i\ Brown, 867, 1213. 
Bachouse v. Selden, 921. 
Bachellor r. Priest, 120, 454, 464, 572, 

573, 576, 987, 1201, 1223, 1230, 

1230a, 1399. 
Backhouse r. Harrison, 773. 
Backman r. Charleston, 1550, 1555. 
Backus r. Danforth, 620, 743. 

r. Shepherd, 1096, 1104. 

r. Spaulding, 187. 
Bacon t\ Bacon, 89, 326&, 3346, 599, 
604, 608, 1318, 1327, 1328. 

r. Dodge, 131, 154. 

f. Fitch, 99. 

V. Hanna, 1115. 

r. Harris, 607. 

r. Holloway, 187. 

V. Lee, Id'i. 

v. Miss. Ins. Co., 384. 

V. Page, 88. 

V, Searles, 1237. 
Bacon, Dawson & Co. t\ Bank, 386. 
Badger v. St phens, 183. 

V. Sutton, 1491a. 
Badnald r. Samuel, 1318. 
Baer v. Leppert, 1109a, 1149. 
Bageley r. Cohen, 1759. 
Bailey t\ Bidwell, 166, 167, 808, 815. 

V, Bodenham, 1590, 1599. 

r. County of Buchannan, 15095. 



XXVI 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphe marked §. 



Bailey t>, Dozier, 926, 940. 

V, Edwards, 1334, 1337. 

V, Finch, 16i2a. 

17. Heald, 898, 920. 

V. Hill, 762. 

V, Pardridge, 1623. 

V. Porter, 636. 

«?. Rawley, 292. 

V, Smith, 758a, 779a. 

V. Smock, 108. 

v. Southwestern Bank, 1088a. 

V. Taber, 63, 85. 

v. Talbreath Bros., 740a. 

1?. Taylor, 1418, 1420, 1421a. 
Bailey Loan Co. r. Hall, 351. 
Bailie v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 228a^ 

341, 342, 1623. 
Bain v. Whitehaven, etc., R. Co., 887. 

V. Wilson, 32. 
Bainbridge v» Wilcocks, 896. 

V, City of Louisville, 1234, 1461, 
1471, 1480. 
Baine r. Williams, 1252. 
Baird v. Blagrove, 32. 

t?. Cochran, 366, 488. 
Baker v. Arnold, 745. 

r. Baker, 268. 

v. Birch, 1082, 1143. 

V. Chambers, 443a. 

r. Chambliss, 406. 

«?. Collins, 176. 

V. Denning, 688a. 

V, Flower, 1305. 

f?. Jubber, 4976. 

V, Leland, 1707. 

V. Harden, 136. 

V. Martin, 1236. 

f?. Morriss, 1023. 

V, Kobinson, 713a. 

V. Scott, 1095. 

V, Stackpole, 1253. 

V. The Gloaming, 1741. 

17. Valentine, 724a. 

17. Wahrmund, 1760. 

t7. Walker, 827, 1329. 

r. Williamson, 1646. 
Baker, Admr. t\ Burkett, 832a. 
Balbach i\ Frelinghuysen, 336, 340a. 
Balcetti v, Serani, 1350. 
Balcombe v. Northrup, 443. 
Baldwin r. Bank of Louisiana, 341, 
343. 

17. Bank of Newburg, 1188. 

V. Barrows, 849p. 

17. Bricker, 849, 849a. 

V. Fagan, 851. 

17. Farns worth, 638. 

V. Hall, 875, 1282. 

17. Richardson, 1047, 1120. 

17. Shuter, 130. 

r. Van Deusen, 734. 



Balfour v. Davis, 62. 

17. Sea, Fire, etc., Ins. Co., 185. 
Ball 17. Allen, 96, 1584. 

17. Greaud, 1095a. 

17. Powers, 69, 70. 

r. Putnam, 195. 

17. Waddell, 1612. 
Ballard r. Bank, 1708<I. 

17. Burnside, 119. 

17. Burton, 185, 1699. 

17. Fuller, 1629. 

17. Insurance Co., 1373a, 1378. 
Ballingalls v, Gloster, 104, 019, 619a, 

671, 1213. 
Ballinger 17. Edwards, 764. 
Ballon 17. Earle, 1741. 
Ballou r. Talbot, 306, 307. 
Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 

392. 
Baltimore & Ohio R. 17. Wilkins, 

1733. 
Balme v. Wambaugh, 326. 
Baltzer r. Kansas P. R. Co., 643. 
Banbury t7. Lissett, 509. 
Bancroft v. Hale, 1016, 1033. 
Bane r. Gridley, 1458a. 
Bange r. Flint, 835. 
Bangher 17. Nelson, 1565. 
Bangor Bank r. Hook, 1439, 1455. 
Bangor Sav. Bank v. City of Still- 
water, 420. 
Bangs 17. Mosher, 1329. 
Banister 17. Kenton, 174a, 742, 1192. 
Bank t\ Alexander, 1590. 

r. Arnold, 195a, 198. 

r. Bailey, 17346, 1734c. 

r. Bank, 327, 340d, 340e, 341, 
698ef, 995, 995a, 1328a. 

17. Barling, 130. 

17. Board of Commissioners, 1540^ 
1553. 

r. Bobart Conunission Co., 551. 

V. Booze, 45a. 

r. Bradley, 995, 1039, 1171. 

t\ Brewing Co., 22, 23a. 

17. Burgwyn, 815, 819. 

17. Buchanan, 205. 

17. Butler, 343. 

V, Cason, 790. 

r. Chattanooga Pulley Co., 833. 

17. Chillicothe, 1529, 1530. 

r. Coal Co., 7796. 

r. Cook, 305. 

i\ Cooper, 879, 894. 

17. Couch, 1311, 1312, 1321. 

17. Cummings, 1624« 17346. 

r. Davis, 7586. 

17. Debrell, 991. 

17. Durfee, 741. 

17. Edholm, 789. 

17. Ellis, 62a. 



References are to 
poragraphB marked §. 



TABLE OF OASES. 



XXVI 1 



Bank v. Farmers' Operative Mfg. Co., 
832a. 
r. Fesler, 81. 
V, Flandem, 688a. 
V. Friar, 1230a. 
17. Good, 1266, 1267, 1332. 
I?. Goodman, 334a. 
V. Gordon, 506, 556. 
1?. Hadley, 422a. 
r. Mainline, 812, 815. 
V, Hayden, 688a. 
V. Howard, 1672. 
P. Hughlett, 202, 1310. 
V. Hunt, 700. 
9. Hysell, 1190. 
17. Jefferson, 175. 
V. King, 336. 
V. Kirth, 104. 
V, Kowalsky, 20. 
V. Lanier, 1708, 1708f, 1709. 
r. Layne, 175, 1312. 
V. Loan & Trust Co., 532. 
c. Looney, 81c, 271, 7796, 1328. 
r. Lumber Co., 709. 
9. Mallan, 1200. 
V. \lann, 198, 880. 
r. Manning, 80. 
V. McNair, 758. 
V. MiJlard, 334. 
V. Minoeks, 1311. 
r. Mohr, 283. 
r. Morrison, 1421a. 
V. Mudgett, 369a. 
f?. Myers, 1391. 
V. Nixon, 713c. 
V. Pegram, 710. 
r. Penland, 797, 802. 
17. Pittell, 1606a. 
r. Rider, 7956. 
V. Roberts et a2., 1250. 
V, Schneidermeyer, 326a. 
V. Sherer, 663. 
r. Shook, 1289a. 
r. Shreiner, 3266. 
V. Shue, 769a. 
r, Simmons, 63. 
V. Simpson, 1322. 
V. Slaughter, 1007. 
r. Sneed, 182. 
V. Sprague, 17346. 
r. StJUwell &, Co., 1405. 
r. Stockell, 795a, 824. 
17. Sumner, 1312. 
17. Supervisors, 87. 
r. Trudeau, 769a. 
r. Union Tr. Co., 1623, 1626. 
V. Urich, 1100. 
t7. Wade, 1405, 1406. 
17. Watson, 1324, 1328. 
V. Wheeler, 62. 
r. Whitehead, 802. 



Bank «?. Wolf, 1385, 1398, 1399. 

t\ Wood, 1339. 
Bank Commissioners r. Lafayette 

Bank, 1682. 
Bank of Albion t7. Smith, 719, 719a. 
Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, 979a, 

983, 1036, 1039. 
Bank of America v. Indiana Banking 

Co., 1637, 1645. 
Bank of Antigo v. Union Trust Co., 

1638. 
Bank of Atchison Co. r. Durfee, 1709. 
Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers' 

Bank, 1708<i. 
Bank of Australia r. White, 334. 
Bank of Batavia v. N. Y. & L. £. R. 

Co., 1733a. 
Bank of Bengal v. Fagan, 284, 1634. 

r. McLeod, 284. 
Bank of Bennington v, Ellis, 694a. 

V, Raymond, 454. 
Bank of British Columbia v. Jeffs, 

1317, 1318. 
Bank of British N. Am. v. Ellis, 62, 
174, 189, 669, 812, 928. 

17. Hooper, 410. 

V, Merchants' Bank,- 1370. 
Bank of Cape Fear v, Seawell, 985. 
Bank of Carroll t?. Taylor, 61. 
Bank of Chadron 17. Anderson, 741, 

821. 
Bank of Charleston v. Chambers, 1192. 
Bank of Charlotte v. Hart, 1689. 
Bank of Chenango v. Hide, 793, 1190. 

V. Root, 999a. 
Bank of Chillicothe r. Dodge, 1699. 
Bank of Clark County v, Gilman, 336, 

341. 
Bank of Columbia t?. Lawrence, 1015, 
1016, 1018, 1022, 1033, 1058. 

r. Magrader, 622, 1023. 

V. Patterson's Admr., 388. 
Bank of Commerce v, Barrett, 797, 
1394. 

r. Bernero, 322. 

V, Bogy, 16a (3), 20, 21. 

V, Bright, 392. 

V. Chambers, 1005, 1024, 1027. 

f7. Fuqua, 62. 

r. Scofield, 183. 

V. Selden, 366. ^ 

t7. Union Bank, 349a, 533, 540, 
1301, 1362, 1363, 1384, 
1654a, 1659, 1661. 

V. Wright, 184, 827, 830. 
Bank of Commerce of West Superior 

V. Ross, 2, 1760. 
Bank of Commonwealth v. Curry, 86, 
142, 490, 854. 

V. Letcher, 1266. 

17. Mudgett, 637, 964. 



XXVlll 



TABLE OF OASES. 



References are to 
paragrckphs marked {. 



Bank of Cumberland v. M&yberry, 69. 

V. McKinley, 69. 
Bank of Decatur v. Hodges, 940. 
Bank of Deer Lodge v. Hope Mining 

Co., 288a, 290. 
Bank of England v. Anderson, 1606&. 

p. Newman, 588, 739, 1264. 

V. Vagliano Bros., 1663. 
Bank of Fort Madison r. Alden, 355, 

365. 
Bank of Gallipolis v, Trimble, 890. 
Bank of Genesee v, Patchin Bank, 298, 

385, 386, 417, 1189, 1398. 
Bank of Geneva v, Howlett, 1016, 1022, 

1025. 
Bank of Georgia v. Lewin, 868, 922. 
Bank of Gilby r. Fartisworth, 1147. 
Bank of Hamburg r. Flynn, 795&. 

V. Johnson, 294. 
Bank of Hamilton r. Mudgett, 1267. 
Bank of Ireland v. Adams Express Co., 
1729a. 

V. Archer, 556. 

V. Beresford, 726, 790. 

17. Evans, 842a. 
Bank of Jamaica v. Jefferson, 709, 710, 

9956. 
Bank of Kansas City v. Mills, 576, 

1198, 1229, 1245. 
Bank of Kentucky v. Garey, 581, 683. 

V, Pursley, 945, 946. 

V. Thornberry, 1682. 

t?. Wister, 1665. 

V. Wooster, 10a, 729. 
Bank of Le Roy v. Harding, 1612. 
Bank of Limestone v. Penick, 86, 142. 
Bank of Lindsborg v. Ober, 341, 960. 
Bank of Lock Haven r. Smith, 1343. 
Bank of Louisiana v. City of New Or- 
leans, 1505. 

r. Mansaker, 1017. 

V. Tournillon, 1028. 
Bank of Louisville v. EUery, 491. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 341. 
Bank of Malvern v. Brown, 1274. 

V. Burton, 1266a. 
Bank of Manchester t?. Glasen, 687, 

947, 958, 1024. 
Bank of Marietta t\ Pindall, 666, 667. 
Bank of Memphis v. White, 1685. 
Bank of Meridian t\ Strauss, 336. 
Bank of Metropolis v. First Nat. Bank, 

336, 698a. 
V. Jones, 1217. 

V. New England Bank, 183a, 334a, 

337, 338, 450. 

Bank of Michigan v. Ely, 558, 561. 
Bank of Middlebury t\ Bingham, 1190. 
Bank of Missouri v. Hall, 1217. 

V. Phillips, 854. 

V. Vaughn, 991. 



Bank of Missouri t\ Wright, 1454. 
Bank of Mobile r. Brown, 927. 

V. Brunn, 1570, 1651. 

r. Hudgins, 331, 343. 

17. Meagher, 1694. 
Bank of Monongahela Valley r. 

Weston, 367, 3696. 
Bank of Monroe v. Mining Co., 815. 
Bank of Montgomery v. Walker, 1335a. 
Bank of Montreal t7. Ingerson, 326. 

V. Page, 370, 373. 

r. Recknagel, 551. 

i\ Thomas, 551a. 
Bank of Newbury v. Band, 1190. 
Bank of New Hanover r. Bridges, 814, 

1266, 1272. 
Bank of Niagara v. McCraken, 1685. 

t\ Roosevelt, 1691. 
Bank of New York t?. Am. Dock & Tr. 
Co., 284. 

r. Bank of Ohio, 1188, 1417. 

f. Vanderhorst, 824, 831o. 
Bank of North America f?. Bangs, 
1622a. 

V. Barriere, 611. 

V. Meredith, 254, 1251. 
Bank of North Carolina v. Bank of 

Cape Fear, 647. 
Bank of Ohio Valley r. Lockwood, 174, 

182, 189, 205, 1272, 1275, 1401. 
Bank of Oregon, Reassignment of, 392. 
Bank of Orange County v. Colby, 908. 
Bank of Orleans v, Merrill, 1699, 1703. 

V, Smith, 341, 344. 
Bank of Paris v. Pearson, 729, 812. 
Bank of Peru v. Farnsworth, 1703. 
Bank of Piedmont v. Smith, 1192. 
Bank of Pittsburg v. Neal, 142, 483, 

775, 814, 1503. 
Bank of Port Gibson v. Baugh, 370. 
Bank of Port Jefferson v. Darling, 

713e, 1001, 1182. 
Bank of Republic v, Baxter, 1608. 

V. Carrington, 832. 

V. Millard, 1636, 1636a, 1638. 
Bank of Rochester v. Bowen, 365. 

t7. Gould, 779. 

V. Gray, 909, 948, 961. 

V. Mintent, 304. 

V, Monteath, 363. 
Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 

1500, 1537, 1550, 1553. 
Bank of Rutland r. Buck, 1190. 

V. Woodroof, 501. 
Bank of Salina v. Babcock, 827, 831c. 
Bank of Saline v. Wingfteld, 643. 
Bank of Sandusky v, Scoville, 184, 

831c. 
Bank of Santa Cruz r. Bartlett, 427. 
Bank of Scotland r. Dominion, 347. 

r. Hamilton, 477. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXIX 



Bank of Sherman r. Apperson, 104, i 

775. 
Bank of Sonoma County v. Gove, 726a. 
Bank of Springfield t*. First Nat. Bank, 

1606a. 
Bank of St. Albans r. Giiliand, 184, 

369, 831c. 
Bank of St. Louis v. Rice, 552. 
Bank of St. Marjr's t?. St. John, 1682. 
Bank of South Carolina r. Flagg, 657. 

V. Humphreys, 371. 

V. M'Willie, 291. 

V. Myers, 1130, 1326. 
Bank of State v. Muskingum Branch 

Bank, 687. 
Bank of Stockton v. Jones, 742. 
Bank of Stratton v. Dixon, 301. 
Bank of Syracuse v. HoUister, 606, 

656. 
Bank of Tennessee r. Barksdale, 1767. 

r. Smith, 1154. 
Bank of Troy v. Topping, 263, 270. 
Bank of Uniyersity r. Tuck, 832a, 1227. 
Bank of United States v, Bieme, 275, 
703, 999a. 

r. Bank of Georgia, 334, 533, 1225, 
1360, 1655, 1656. 

V. Oarneal, 656, 985, 1022, 1028. 

r. Corcoran, 1003, 1019. 

V. Dandridge, 388. 

17. Daniel, 1260. 

r. Davis, 391, 719, 1217. 

r. Donally, 882, 885, 902. 

V, Dunn, 395, 719, 1217. 

V. Goddard, 331, 987, 992. 

V. Hatch, 1019, 1305, 1307, 1320, 
1327. 

o. Lane, 1024. 

f7. Leathers, 026, 1149. 

V. Lyman, 1159^ 1165, 1189. 

V. Macalister, 3266, 334a. 

r. Norwood, 1015. 

V. Russell, 1373a. 

17. Sill, 1482. 1695. 

o. I^nith, 644, 962. 

9. United States, 576, 898, 920, 
1230, 1439, 1446, 1458, 1479. 
Bank of Utica v. Bender, 1032, 1058, 
1115, 1121, 1155. 

r. Davidson, 1032. 

V. Hillard, rzl7. 

r. Ives, 1316, 1328. 

V. MlUnster, 324, 346. 

V. Phillip, 1032. 

V. Smalley, 1708e. 

r. Smedes, 324. 

r. Smith, 455, 572, 576, 600, 656, 
991, 1230. 

V, Wager, 614. 
Bank of Vergennes r. Cameron, 365, 

369, 654, 953, 965, 1236. 



Bank of Virginia v. Ward, 1479, 1695, 

1696. 
Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 324, 

329, 340, 345, 349, 354, 490, 589. 

614, 634, 908, 931, 932. 
Bank of Winona v. Woflford, 130, 693. 
Banker v. Barron, 1260. 

V. Coons, 46. 
Bankhead v, Owen, 731. 
Banking Co. r. Bell, 1147a, 1149. 

V. Morehead, 263. 

V. Savings Bank, 713a. 
Banks v. Marshall, 1243, 1244. 
Banner, Ex parte, 1343. 
Barbaroux t*. Waters, 658, 962, 1085. 
Barber r. Backhouse, 201, 756. 

r. Baker, 1426. 

V. Boehm, 203. 

V. Gingell, 2d6, 299, 353, 1353. 

V. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 382. 

r* Van Horn, 356, 999. 
Barbour r. Bank, 1426, 1431. 

r. Bayen, 617. 
Barclay, Ex parte, 990, 1266. 

V. Bailey, 602, 603. 

t\ W^eaver, 671. 

V. Weever, 1093, 1106. 
Barcroft v. Denny, 504. 
Bardsley v, Delp, 832. 

V. Sternberg, 428, 1221. 
Baring r. Clark, 526, 527. 

r. Reeder, 1217. 
Barkalow v. Johnson, 1149, 1152, 1163. 
Barker v. Barker, 190, 1107, 1124. 

V. Clarke, 1146. 

V. Hall, 1014. 

r. Lichtenberger, 184, 782. 

17. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 386, 405, 
406. 

V. Prentiss, 199a. 

V, Sterne, 65, 870. 

V, The SwaUow, 1741. 

V, Valentine, 724, 725. 
Barley v. Freeman, 1767. 
Barlin r. Scott, 725a. 
Barling v. Bank, 130. 
Barlow t\ Bishop, 242, 681, 1231. 

V. Congregational Society, 298, 
405, 407. 

17. Gregory, 629. 

V. Scott, 725a. 
Barmby v. Wolfe, 149, 758a, 832a. 
Bamaby v, Bamaby, 234. 
Barnard v. Buckhaus, 195a. 

V. Campbell, 1727, 1750a. 

V, Cushing, 151, 154, 159. 

17. Guslin, 719. 
Barnes v. Bank, 39. 

r. Gorman, 60. 

r. Hedley, 207. 

r. McCullers, 1312. 



XXX 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragrnphs marked §. 



Barnes v. McMuUin, 1435a. 

t*. Ontario Bank, 382, 390, 391, 
392. 

V. Reynolds, 1000, 1001. 

V. Sammons, 1339. 

V. Stevens, 177. 

17. Town of Lacon, 1551. 

V. Van Keuren, 1387, 1389. 

V. Vaughn, 651, 654, 654a, 658. 
Barnet v. Smith, 497, 1605, 1606, 

1606a, 1623. 
Barnett v, Cecil, 1342. 

t;. Denison, 1543. 

V. Lichenstein, 248. 

V. Nott, 713a. 

17. Offerman, 170. 

17. Ringgold, 574. 

17. Wing, 669, 1770. 
Barnett Banking Co., In re, 1343. 
Barney t7. Earl, 832. 

V. Newcomb, 896, 897, 1188, 1756. 
Bamum v. Phoenix County, 769. 

V. Reed, 264. 
Barnwell v. Gorman, 60. 

V, Mitchell, 1030. 
Barr v. Boyer, 1311. 

V. Mitchell, 713a. 
Barrett v. Allen, 627. 

V. Barrett, 883. 

27. Charleston Bank, 1133. 

V, County Bank, 1500. 

17. County Court, 1500, 1545, 1548. 

V. Dodge, 895. 

f7. Evans, 1015. 

«7. Funday, 94. 

f7. Ooddard, 1279a. 

17. Hinckley, 748, 834. 

17. Russell, 683. 

17. Skinner, 94. 

r. Weber, 757. 
Barrick v. Austin, 163, 392, 728. 
Barring t7. Clark, 526, 1227. 
Barrington v. Bank, 388. 

r. Skinner, 205. 
Barroll r. Foreman, 769a, 795a, 1230a, 

1231, 1612a. 
Barron u. Cady, 1338. 

17. How, 1267. 
Barrow r. Coles, 1745. 

r. Pike, 173. 
Barry i?. Clark, 527. 

17. Merchants' Ezch. Co., 382, 383. 

17. Morse, 719, 719a, 1093. 
Barry Co. t7. McCothlin, 1185. 
Barson 17. Huntington, 68. 
Barstow r. Hiriart, 985. 

17. Mining Co., 1708, 1708^. 

17. Stone, 1230. 
Bartholomew 17. Seaman, 619. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 648. 
Bartsch v, Atwater, 731, 874. 



Bartlett t\ Benson, 724a. 

V. Eddy, 742. 

V. Isbell, 349, 992. 

17. Leathers, 627. 

17. Robinson, 1023. 

17. Same, 63. 

17. State, 427, 1621. 

r. Tucker, 141, 304, 307. 
Barto 17. Schenk, 715. 
Barton 17. American Nat. Bank, 711. 

17. Baker, 1131, 1137, 1172. 

r. Bennett, 1172. 

17. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 62. 

17. Trent, 731, 737. 

17. Wilkins, 80. 
Barton Co. 17. Walker, 1560, 1564. 
Bartnim 17. Caddy, 783. 
Bascom et al, 17. Toner, 1471. 
Bascom 17. \oung, 368. 
Baskerville 17. Harriss, 1149. 
Basket 17. Hassell, 24, 24a, 25, 26. 
Baskin r. Crews, 1788. 

17. Wayne, 1411. 
Bass 17. Clive, 535. 

17. Columbus, 1560. 

17. Glover, 17336. 

17. O'Brien, 303, 411. 
Bassenhorst 17. Wilby, 610, 611, 612, 

1171. 
Bassett r. Avery, 726a, 803. 

17. Garthwaite, 800a. 

17. Haines, 497a. 
Bastian v, Dreyer, 194. 
Batavian Bank 17. McDonald, 1312. 
Batchelder v. White, 1384. 
Bateman v, Joseph, 460, 1114, 1130. 

17. Kingston, 224. 

17. Mid Wales R., .499r:^%o 
Bates 17. Butler, 663a. 

17. Cain, 1227. 

V, First Nat. Bank, 1612. 

17. Forcht, 369. 

r. Kemp, 725, 726a. 

17. Kempton, 1181a. 

17. New York Ins. Co., 17084. 

r. Rosekrans, 1266a. 

17. Todd, 1729, 1729a. 
Bath County 17. Amy, 1523. 
Bathe 17. Lacroix, 188. 

17. Taylor, 1375, 1377, 1401. 
Bathford 17. Shaw, 1786, 1788. 
Batley r. Carswell, 291. 
Battle 17. Weems, 726. 
Battles 17. Laudenslager, 819. 
Baugh 17. Ramsey, 81. 
Baumgardner v. Reeves, 1118. 
Bausman r. Kelly, 574. 
Baxendale v. Bennett, 842a. 
Baxter v. Duren, 731a, 735. 

V. Earl of Portsmouth, 212. 

V. EUiSi 814. 



Reference* are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF GASES. 



XXXI 



Baxter v. Graves, 1084. 

17. Little, 724, 725, 1233, 1437. 

V, Stewart, 60. 
Baxter Nat. Bank v. Talbot, 899. 
Bay r. Coddington, 826, 831c. 

f?. Freaxer, 73. 
Bayard r. Shunk, 737, 1269, 1672, 1677, 

1678. 
Bayley p. Chubb, 1027. 
* p. Faber, 197, 806. 

p. Greenleaf, 1281. 
Baylies v. Peterson, 443a. 
Bays V. Connor, 358a. 
Beach v. Moser, 341. 

p. Wakefield, 1221. 

p. Zimmerman, 1319. 
Beacon Trust Co. p. Bobbins, 189, 790, 

832a, 833. 
Beadier p. McElrath, 195a. 
Beale p. Parrish, 987, 1058a. 
Beal p. Nat. Bank, 340e. 
Beall p. Leverett, 785. 
Beals p. Lewis, 1266. 

V. Peck, 979, 999a, 1000. 

p. See, 210, 685. 
Beaman's Admr. p. Russell, 1421a. 
Bean P. Arnold, 1099. 

p. Briggs, 891, 1703. 

p. Brown, 1251. 

p. Keen, 1478. 

p. Pioneer Mining Co., 307. 
Beard p. Dedoljph, 741, 745. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 741. 

r. Boot, 1328, 1329. 

p. Webb, 250. 

p. Westerman, 1133. 

p. White, 81. 
Bearden p. Moses, 174a. 
Beardslee P. Horton, 797. 
Beardsley p. Baldwin, 41. 

p. Cook, 23a. 

p. Hawes et al, 1769a, 1787. 

p. Hill, 86. 

p. Warner, 1304, 1305, 1339. 
Bearman p. Board Police, 422. 
Beattie p. Nat. Bank, 672, 1225. 
Beatty p. Western College, 46, 51a, 180. 
Beaty p. Grim, 1763. 
Beanchamp p. Cash, 998. 
Beaumont P. Reeve, 195. 
Beauregard P. Knowlton, 1596. 
Beaver p. Beaver, 24, 1612&. 

p. Boynton, 719. 
Beaver County v. Armstrong, 1489, 

1513. 
Bechtel's Appeal, 1404. 
Beck p. Haas, 1215, 1251, 1252. 

p. Robiey, 1239, 1240, 1241. 

p. Thompson, 616, 1147. 
Becker v. Fischer, 1343. 
Beekerdike v. BoUman, 1074. 



Beckham r. Hague, 1181a. 

Beckhans p. Commercial Bank, 827, 

832a. 
Beckwith p. Angell, 713c. 

p. Corrall, 772, 1462, 1463. 

p. Farnum, 738. 

p. Smith, 1028. 

r. Webber, 769a. 
Becnel p. Tournillon, 1024. 
Bedell p. Hering, 849. 

p. Scarlett, 305. 
Bedford Bank p. Acoam, 326a. 
Bedford Com. Ins. Co. P. Covell, 305. 

p. Deakin, 1295, 1296, 1300, 1328. 

p. Hickman, 1034. 
Beebe p. Brooks, 611, 996. 

p. Hutton, 122. 
Beecher p. Dunlap, 80, 81, 81a. , 
Beeching P. Growar, 648, 1679a. 
Beeker p. Saunders, 1788. 
Beele p. Bidgood, 79. 
Beeler p. Frost, 1093. 

p. Young, 226. 
Beeman P. Duck, 539, 1351, 1354, 1365, 

1366. 
Beer p. Clifton, 611. 
Beers p. Phcenix Glass Co., 382. 
Beeson p. Lipman, 1198. 

p. Shively, 1181. 
Begbie p. Levi, 69. 
Behrens p. McKende, 210. 
Beime p. Dunlap, 55. 
Beissner, Admr. p. Weeks, 713a, 995. 
Beland P. Brewing Assn., 851. 
Belcher p. Smith, 1782. 
Belden p. Carter, 68. 

p. Hann, 694. 

p. Lamb, 751, 1058. 
Belderback p. Burlingame, 161. 
Be] don p. Lamb, 758a. 
Belger P. Dismore, 1740a. 
Belknap p. Nat. Bank of North Amer- 
ica, 1347, 1660. 
Bell p. Alexander, 1587, 1595, 1638. 

p. Bean, 832a. 

p. Beller, 389, 301, 302. 

p. Bruen, 1755. 

p. Buckley, 1369. 

p. Cagerty, 731. 

p. Dagg, 672, 731, 739, 740a. 

p. Farmville R. Co., 1559, 1560. 

p. First Nat. Bank, 543, 614, 633. 

p. Ha^erstown Bank, 1012, 1023. 

p. Hall's Exrs., 1060. 

p. Lord Ingestre, 721. 

p. Mahin, 1387. 

17. Morrison, 374. 

p. Moss, 1727. 

p. Norwood, 1206. 

p. Packard, 868. 

P. Riddell, 196. 



XXXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked 



Bell r. Sheridan, 193. 

f. State Bank, 1015. 

r. Tilden, 11926. 

V. Young, 1471. 
Bellamy v. Majoribanks, 1571a, 1585a, 

1636. 
Bellasis v. Hester, 402, 624, 626. 
Belle r. Bidgood, 79. 

V, Bnien, 879. 
Bellemire v. Bank of United States, 

341, 343. 
Belleville Bank v. Borneman, 68a, 1266. 

1267. 
Bellinger r. Brockaway, 1091. 
Bell is V, Lyons, 812. 
Belknap v. Davis, 533. 
Bellows Falls Bank v. Rutland County, 
1703, 1707, 1707a. 

V, Lovell, 1311. 
Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge, 769, 

775, 814. 
Beloit V. Morgan, 1560. 
Belotte V, Wynne, 374. 
Beltzhoo\'er v. Blackstock, 775, 779a, 

1462. 
Bemans v. Wessels, 67a. 
Bemis t\ McKenzie, 996. 
Bend v. Weitze, 790. 
Bender v. Bean, 1289. 

V, Beessing, 374. 
Benedict v, Catfee, 1135, 1172. 

V, Cowden, 149, 152, 153, 1397, 
1407. 

V. Cox, 1332, 1338. 

V, Miner, 319, 1377. 

V, Olson, 1326. 

V. Schmieg, 594, 1005. 

V. Smith, 321. 
Benford v. Adams, 1222. 
Benham v. Bishop, 231, 234 

V. Smith, 417. 
Benjamin r. Arnold, 1338. 

r. McConnell, 1290. 

V, Rogers, 339, 790. 

V, Ver Nooy, 81a. 
Benman v. Millison, 829a. 
Bennell «?. Wilder, 1251. 
Benners v. Clemens, 916. 
Bennett v, Farrell, 137. 

r. Young, 966. 
Bennit v. Mo. Pacific R. Co., 1741. 
Benoin v. Paquin, 798. 
Benson v. Abbott, 664. 

V. Adams, 1209. 

V. Carmel, 432. 

17. Drake, 70. 

V. Dublin Warehouse Co., 195a, 
7136. 

r. Mayo, 1523. 
Benthall v. Judkins, 715, 1757. 
Bentnick v, Dorrien, 549. 



Benton t*. Ger.-Am. Nat. Bank, 757, 
802, 830, 867. 

t?. Gibson, 611. 

v. Martin, 81a, 1173. 

V. Marvin, 1101. 

f. Mattin, 68, 81, 1173. 

t\ Roberts, 3o8o. 
Berdsell v. Russell, 1499a. 
Berge r. Abbott, 1118, 1119. 
Bergman t\ Salmon, 789, 815. 
Bereich t*. Marye, 1708p. 
Berkeley i-. Cannon, 213. 

V. Tinsley, 190, 757. 

V. Watling, 1727, 1729. 
Berkshire Bank v. Jones, 656, 657, 

1096. 
Berliner v. Town of Waterloo, 1535. 
Bernard v. Barry, 891. 
Barnard, Admr. v. Whitney Bank, 

1643. 
Bernd f. Lynes, 1789. 
Berner v. Steiner, 1181a. 
Berney v. Steiner Bros., 698<i. 
Bernheimer v. Herrmann, 1623. 

t*. Marshall, 1361. 
Berridge v. Banks, 248. 

r. Fitzgerald, 1016. 
Berrien v. Wright, 922. 
Berry t?. Berry, 857, 858. 

V. Bridges, 1276. 

V. Griffin, 1267, 1268. 

V, Pullen, 1316, 1317. 

V. Robinson, 611, 996. 

V. South Bank, 1060. 
Berryman t*. Manker, 1387. 
Berthune r. McCrary, 181. 
Bertrand v. Barkman, 184, 827. 
Besant r. Cross, 517. 
Besshears v. Rowe, 568. 
Best 1?. Crall, 822, 824, 1228. 

r. Hoppie, 713, 713a. 

V. Nokomis Nat. Bank, 1198. 
Betterton v. Roops, 828, 1276, 1277a. 
Bettis V. Bristol, 274. 

r. Schreibe-, 960, 1050. 
Betts V, Kimpton, 256. 
Beun V. Kutzchan, 62, 669. 
Bevan v. Eldridge, 1212. 

V, Atlanta Nat. Bank, 1219. 
Beveridge v, Richmond, 546, 1326, 

1334. 
Beverley's Case, 209. 
Beverley v. Davidson Co., 10a. 
Bibb V. Hitchcock, 196. 

V. Peyton, 1165. 
Bickerdike v, BoUman, 1074, 1170. 
Bickford v. First Nat. Bank, 1590, 
1626. 

r. Gibbs, 1759, 1788. 
Bickley r. Commercial Bank, 1700, 

1704. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXXlll 



Bieknall r. Waterman, 738. 

Biegler r. The Merchants' L. & T. Co., 

109, 797. 
Biery r. Haines, 1391. 
Bigelow r. Benedict, 195a. 

V. Burham, 877, 922, 923. 

r. Colton, 707, 707o, 715. 

r. Grannis, 233. 

p. Henniger, 802. 

r. Reynolds, 1755. 

r. Stephen, 1373a, 1411. 
Big Rapids Nat. Bank v. Peters, 1322. 
Big Sandy ^at. Bank c. Chilton, 

331. 
Biggerstaff r. Marston, 1233. 
Bigss V. Piper, 83. 
Bigler v. Waller, 1248. 
Bignold, Ex parte, 1109. 
Bilbie c. Levy, 70. 

r. Lumley, 1148. 
Bilborough v. Holmes, 1318. 
Bill V. Stewart, 815. 
Billgerry r. Branch, 217, 218, 669, 

678a, 1060, 1062. 1070, 1567, 1571. 
Billing r. Devaux, 25, 491, 498, 499, 

503. 
Billings r. Billings, 80. 

r. Collins, 781. 
Billingsley v. Dean, 62. 

IT. McClellan, 741, 742. 

r. McClelland, 196a. 
Billington v. W^agoner, 1317. 
Binford r. Adams, 1221, 1222. 

r. Binford, 1221. 
Bingham r. Noyes, 247. 

r. Reddy, 1373. 

r. Stanley, 177. 
Binney v. Globe Works Nat. Bank, 93, 
142, 242. 

r. Plumley, 63, 65, 1187. 
Biossat V. SuUiTan, 170. 
Birch r. Fisher, 1702a, 1703. 
Birchard r. Bartlett, 705. 
Birckhead v. Brown, 1797. 
Bircleback r. Wilkins, 162. 
Bird r. Brown, 318. 

r. Daggett, 386. 

V. Kay, 1086. 

r. Louisiana State Bank, 327. 

r. Le Blanc, 1091, 1095a. 
Hirdi^ll c. Russell, 775. 
Birmingham Nat. Bank r. Bradley, 

1362, 1363, 1369. 
Bi<ibee v. Torinus, 201. 
Bisbing v. Graham, 1473. 
Bishop V. Chase, 574, 690, 7266. 

r. Corning, 16125. 

F. Dexter, 611, 996. 

r. DiUard, 80. 

c. Eaton, 1312, 1321, 1753. 

r. Hayward, 1202. 

OL. I 111 



Bishop r. Rowe, 130, 301, 548, 748a, 
1266, 1278. 

17. Seamans' Bank for Savings, 
16126. 

r. Yeazle, 1304. 
Bishop's Kstate p. Bank's Appeal, 1312. 
Bisley v. Brown, 1298. 
Bissel V, Campbell, 1729a. 
Bissell V. City of Kankakee, 1544, 
1550, 15556. 

r. Dickerson, 757, 758a, 790. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 392. 

f. Gowdy, 725a, 726a. 

V. Jeffersonville, 317, 389, 1537, 
1540, 1564. 

r. Lewis, 561, 867, 897. 

r. Morgan, 814a. 
Bissinger v. Guiteman, 81a. 
Bitzer v. Wager, 1191. 
Bixby p. Deemar, 1741. 
Bizzell V. Stone, 1432. 
Black r. Coleman, 151. 

V. Duncan, 63. 

r. Holland, 1215. 

r. Peele, 543. 

V. Strickland, 1198. 

r. Tarbell, 726. 

V. Ward, 56, 58. 

V. Zacharie, 1272, HOS*-. 
Blacker v. Dunbar, 93. 
Blackbourne, Ex parte, 1262. 1264. 
Blackenhagen r. Blundell, 103. 
Blacker &, Co. r. Ryan, 614. 
Blackie f. Pidding, 1464, 1483.- i^B -^ ^ 
Blackman v, Doren, 1075, 1076. 

r. Green, 663. 

V. Lehman, 99, 420, 663a, 1500, 
1501a. 
Blackmore r. Granbery, 1262. 

V. Wood, 80. 
Black River Sav. Bank r. Edwards, 

164. 
Blackatone Bank v. Hill, 1251, 1319. 
Blackwell r. Denie, 123. 

V. Hamilton, 33, 34. 
Blade v. Noland, 1482. 
Blades v. Grant County Dep. Bank, 

1637. 
Blaffer r. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 1622a. 
Blain v. Hitch, 196. 
Blaine v. Bourne, 698. 
Blair & Hoge v, Wilson, 1064, 1065. 
Blair v. Hagemeyer, 791. 

t*. Bank, 392, 687, 1188. 

t\ Bank of Tennessee, 643, 1303, 
1398. 

r. Carpenter, 1251. 
Blake v. Coleman, 151, 1396. 

V. McMillen, 594. 
Blakely r. Grant, 664a, 1017, 1782. 
Blakemore v. Wood, 80. 



XXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked 



Blakeslee v, Hewitt, 325, 704. 
Blakey v. Johnson, 1373a, 1405. 

V. Mutual Bank, 1108. 
Blanc V. Mutual Nat. Bank, 327, 1096, 

1099. 
Blanchard v. Kaull, 405. 

1?. Page, 1727. 

V. Stevens, 827, 830. 

17. Tittavawasse Boom Co., 1276. 

V, Wood, 1099. 
Bland v. O'Hagen, 148. 
Blanding i;. Burr, 1556. 

V. Wilsey, 1789. 
Blaney v. Pelton, 812. 
Blankenahip v. Rogers, 1080, 1429, 

1595. 
Blanks t\ Ripley, 203. 
Blankshan v. Russell, 187a, 188. 
Blasdell r. Locke, 24a. 
Blatchford r. Milliken, 716. 
Blazer t% Bandy, 1317a. 
Bleaden v. Charles, 1468a. 
Bleckley v. Goodwin, 196a. 
Blenderman v. Price, 1085. 
Blenn v, Lyford, 726. 
Blessard v. Hurst, 1154, 1158. 
Blesse v. Blackburn, 741. 
Blethen v. Lovering, 670. 
Blevins v. Fairley, 93. 
Bliss r. Covington, 1473. 

17. Houghton, 890. 
Block 17. Bell, 131. 

17. Wilkerson, 497. 
Blodgett 17. American Nat. Bank, 369&. 

17. Durgin, 879, 880. 

17. Jackson, 139. 
Blood 17. Mavcuse, 396. 

17. Northrup, 44, 45, 1703. 
Bloom 17. Helm, 365. 

17. Warder, 1769. 
Bloomington School v. Nat. School 

Furnishing Co., 422. 
Blossom 17. Dodd, 1711. 
Blount r. Bestland, 257. 

r. Edison Cren. Elec. Co., 205. 

r. Windley, 1689. 
Blow 17. Maynard, 1342. 
Blum 17. Bid well, 1149. 

r. Loggin, 802, 812. 
Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 834. 
Boaler v. Mayer, 1322. 
Boalt r. Brown, 1385. 
Board i\ M. Ferst's Sons & Co., 292. 
[k>ard of Comrs. 17. ^Etna Life Ins. Co., 
1537. 

r. Sutliff, 803, 1537. 
Board of Education 17. Fonda, 1260, 

1330. 
Board of Supervisors r. Hall, 1188. 
Boardman r. Paige, 1294. 

r. Smith, 1432. 



Boatman's Sav. Bank t\ Grewe, 834. 

V, Johnson, 1310. 

r. West Atl. R. Co., 17336. 
Boatman's Sav. Inst. v. Bank of Mu., 
1686. 

17. Mead, 365. 
Bobb r. Letcher, 1198. 
Bobe V. Stickney, 1251, 1252. 
xiobo V. Hansel, 231. 
Bock r. Gorriseau, 334a. 
Boddington v. Schlencher, 332, 1590. 
Bodley 17. Higgins, 67. 

V. National Bank, 803. 
Boehm 17. Garcias, 508. 

17. Sterling, 725a, 1567, 1595, 1634. 
Boeka 17. Nuella, 741. 
Boemer 17. Traders' Nat. Bank, 759a. 
Bogart 17. M'Clung, 1150, 1164. 
Bogarth t\ Breedlove, 1386. 
Bogert 17. Hertell, 266, 268. 
Bogerau 17. Gueringer, 370a. 
Boggess 17. Goff, 1251. 

V. Lilly, 200. 
Bogie v. Nolan, 164. 
Bogy r. Keil, 1083, 1172. 
Bohons, Assignee r. Brown, 197, 199a. 
Boit V. Corr, 649. 

17. Whitehead, 805. 
Bolin, In re, 1612&. 
Bollen 17. Perry Co., 1551. 
Bolitho, Ex parte, 364. 
Bolt V. Dawkins, 1259. 
Bolton t*. Dugdale, 53. 

17. Horrod, 470. 
Bonbonus, Ex parte, 365, 366, 565, 567. 
Bond 17. Bragg, 969. 

r. Farnham, 1128, 1137, 1138, 
1142. 

V. Fitzpatrick, 1437. 

17. Storris, 1229. 

17. Warden, 1592. 

f. Whitlield, 1472. 
Bond, Admr. 17. Holloway, 701a. 
Bondot V. Rogers, 803, 1537, 1542. 
Bondurant 17. £\ierett, 1015. 
Bone 17. Tharp, 825. 
Bonedon t*. Page, 898. 
Bonesteel 17. Bowie, 1266a. 
Boneton 17. Welsh, 982, 983. 
Bonham 17. Needles, 1537. 
Bonman v. Van Kruen, 190. 
Bonnell v. Prince, 1319, 1325. 
Bonner v. City of New Orleans, 14996, 
1507. 

i\ Nelson, 854. 
Boody 17. Lincoln Nat. Bank, 1612a. 
Booher t*. Allen, 724a. 
Bookheim r. Alexander, 183a, 813c. 
Bool V. Mix. 229. 
Boomer r. Koon, 1375. 
Boon 1-. Murphy, 1281. 



References are to 
paragn^ph8 marked §. 



TABLE OF GASES. 



XXXV 



Boone v. Boone, 196. 

Booth V. Dexter ]<'ire-£ngine Co., 161. 

V. Grove, 287. 

r. Powers, 1395, 1410, 1411, 1412. 

V. Quin, 3696, 375, 803. 

t7. Smith, 1267, 1276. 

V. 8torri88, 679. 

V. Wallace, 86. 
Boozer r. Anderson, 62. 
Borden v, Clark, 700, 797. 
Borgeas Invteetment Co. r. Vett, 775. 
Bomeman v. Sidlinger, 24. 
Borough V. Perkins, 926. 

V, White, 608. 
Borradaile r. Lowe, 1091, 1163. 

V. Spelman, 255. 
Borup V. Mininger, 329, 347. 
Bosanqnet v. Dudman, 183a. 
Bosch 9. Cassing, 787a. 
Boss 17. Hewitt, 724a, 787, 1506a. 
Bossanger v. Boss, 751. 
Bosawell v. Thigpen, 833. 
Boston Bank r. Hodges, 658, 1212. 
Bostwick V. Dodge, 832. 
Boteler r. Dexter, 710, 1473, 1484. 
Bottomley v. Brooke, 1431. 

V. Fisher, 402. 
Bottomly v. Goldsmith, 198, 808. 
Bouchell r. Clniy, 224, 225. 
Boughman v. Meyer, 195a, 770, 1503. 
Bouffhton r. Flint, 1707a. 
Bonltbee r. Stubbs, 1322. 
Boulton r. Welsh, 983. 
Boalware P. Newton, 170, 1534. 
Bourne r. Ward, 162, 163. 
Bouton p. Hill, 223, 1215. 
Boats r. Ellis, 24, 26. 
Boyard v. Dickerson, 812, 1192&. 
Bowen v. Bradbey, 868. 

V. Byrne, 122. 

V, Julius, 1234. 

p. McCann, 174. 

17. National Bank, 386. 

17. Newell, 622, 634, 908, 1558, 
1571a, 1572, 1573, 1576. 

p. Stoddard, 294, 1450. 

V. Van Gindy, 1623. 
Bower v. Hastings, 726. 

V. Hoffman, 1701. 
Bowerbank t?. Monteiro, 79, 517. 
Bowers v. Erans, 340e. 

r. Hurd, 179. 

t?. Jewell, 1401, 1403. 

V. Still, 1301. 

r. Thomas, 849. 
Bowery Bank p. Gerety, 1321, 1328. 
Bowes p. Howe, 1172. 
Bowie p. Duvall, 576, 1 197, 1229. 

p. Hall, 62. 

r. Hume, 149, 150, 152, 999a, 
1092a. 



Bowker p. Childs, 1289a. 
Bowles p. Elmore, 1293. 

p. Lambert, 100. 
Bowlin p. Creel, 1352a. 
Bowling p. Arthur, 341, 343. 

p. Harrison, 1005, 1007, 1013. 
Bowman p. Hiller, 675, 858. 

p. Metzger, 777, 7956. 

p. Neely, 1513. 

p. Nichol, 1401. 

p. St. Louis Times, 1228. 

p. Van Kuren, 824, 825a, 831. 

p. Wood, 1181a, 1192. 
Bowser p. Rendell, 1342. 

p. Spieshofer, 815. 
Bowyer p. Bampton, 673. 
Boyce p. Edwards, 551, 559, 560, 561, 
596, 1799. 

P. Geyer, 799. 

p. Tabb, 169, 172, 173. 
Boyd P. Bank of Toledo, 1103, 1104, 
1107. 

p. Brotherson, 1404. 

P. Cleveland, 1093. 

p. Cochrane, 196, 1316. 

p. Corbitt, 1193. 

p. Cummings, 831c. 

p. Emerson, 1621. 

p. Hitchcock, 1265, 1267. 

p. McCann, 174, 803. 

p. Mclvor, 815. 

p. Nasmith, 1601a. 

p. Orton, 999a. 

p. Parker, 834a. 

p. Plumb, 365. 

P. Vanderkemp, 802. 
Boyd's Admrs. p. City Sav. Bank, 591, 

972, 1000, 1005, 1011. 
Boydell p. Harkness, 619, 642. 
Boyer p. Boogher, 713a. 

p. Chandler, 1506a. 
Boykin p. Bank, 3406, 340<i, 698d. 

p. Bank of Mobile, 76, 793a. 
Boylan p. Hugnet, 1708a. 
Boyle P. Skinner, 363. 
Boynton p. Pierce, 713c. 
Bozeman p. Rushing, 196. 
Brabstone p. Gibson, 895. 
Bracken P. Griffen, 1534. 
Brackett p. Montfort, 1392, 1393. 
Bracton r. Willing, 532. 
Bradbrook v. Boston, 24a (3). 
Bradbury p. Davenport, 08. 

p. Van Pelt, 1221, 
Braden v, Lemnon, 1221. 
Bradfoot P. Fayetteville, 1491a. 
Bradford p. Corey, 708, 708a, 1099. 

p. Fox, 1617, 1623. 

p. Prescott, 713a. 
Bradford Nat. Bank p. Taylor, 142, 

694, 1376. 



XXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Bradlaugh v, De Rin, 867, 906. 
Bradlee 17. Boston QlaBs Co., 298, 300, 

401. 
Bradley v. Anderson, 81. 

v. Ballard, 423. 

V. Carey, 1785&. 

V. Davis, 979, 1003, 1019. 

V. Delaplane, 1572. 

r. Harrington, 1574. 

t?. Hunt, 524, 1672. 

V, Mann, 1373a. 

V. Marshall, 726a. 

V. Northern Bank, 588, 945. 

V. Phelps, 713c. 

V. Pratt, 226. 

V. Root, 23. 

r. Sill, 54. 
Bradshaw r. Hedge, 962. 

V. Van Volkenbury, 198. 
Brady v. Chandler, 36. 

V. The Mayor, 318. 

V. White, 1198. 
Bragg V. Greenleaf, 1197. 
Braham v. Bubb, 41. 
Brahan v. First Nat. Bank, 62. 
Brailey v, Henry, 789. 
Brailsford v. Williams, 988, 990, 992, 

1054. 
Brainard v. Cappella, 186. 

V. Davis, 831a. 

v. N. Y. & H. R. Co., 1489, 1496. 

V. Reavis, 724a. 
Braithwait v. Gardner, 535. 
Bramah v. Roberts, 358a. 
Braman v. Hawk, 1317. 

r. Hess, 760, 766. 
Bramhall v. Beckett, 827. 

V. Van Campen, 69. 
Branch v. Commissioners, 838. 

». Howard, 174. 

V, National Bank, 339, 698d. 
Branch Bank v. Gaffrey, 996. 

V, James, 1338. 

V, Knox, 331. 

r. Pierce, 1030. 

V. Tillman, 1482, 1484. 
Branch State Bank v. McLeran, 592. 
Brandao v. Barnett, 334a. 
Brandenstein t?. Ebensberger, 183. 
Brandon v, Scott, 354. 
Brandt v. Bowlby, 1734, 17346, 1734c. 

V. Mickle, 1135. 
Brannin v. Henderson, 512. 
Brannon r. Irons, 1312. 
Brant v. Barnett, 67a, 1294. 
Brantley & Co. v. Lee, 1260. 
Bratton v. Lowry, 156, 248. 
Brauer v. Campania, 1739. 
Braxton v. Braxton, 803, 804. 
Bray v, Hawden, 1043, 1044. 

V, Manson, 1305. 



Bray r. Marsh, 1099. 
Braynard v, Fisher, 1437. 

V. Marshall, 875, 881. 
Brazleton v. McMurray, 132. 
Breckenridge v. Lewis, 843, 844 
Breed v. Cook, 1262. 

V, Hillhouse, 1786. 
Brefogle v. Beckley, 1468. 
Breitengross v. Fair, 189. 
Breitung v. Lindauer, 1260. 
Breneman v, Furness, 717, 720a, 721. 

V. Mayer, 775, 880. 
Brengle v. Bushey, 1328. 
Brennan v. Brennan, 1191, 1200. 

V. Merchants' Bank, 1230, 1636. 

V, Voigt, 627, 945. 
Brent r. Bank of Washington, 1708c. 

V, Ervin, 1478, 1481. 

V, Miller, 305, 1731. 
Brent's Exrs. v. Bank of Metropolis, 

639. 
Bresee v. Crumpton, 51a, 729. 

V. Stanly, 231. 
Br^enthal v. Williams, 36. 
Brett V, Marston, 1780. 
Brevoot v, Hughes, 203. 
Brewer v. Atkeison, 834. 

V. Boynton, 719. 

V. Brewer, 36. 
Brewing Co. v. Manasee, 834. 
Brewster v. Arnold, 983. 

V. Baker, 183, 185. 

V. Burnett, 1372a. 
, r. Doane, 1057. 

r. Hobart, 277. 

v. McCardel, 84, 630. 
' V, Scrise, 1730. 

V. Silence, 1767, i779. 

V. Syracuse, *556. 

V. Wakefield, 1458a. 

V. Williams, 49. 
Bricket v. Spalding, 649. 
Brickley v. Edwards, 93. 
Bridge v. Batchelder, 735, 736, 1269. 
Bridge Co. v. Savings Bank, 1277a. 
Bridgeford v. Masonville Co., 1478. 
Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. Co., 1523. 
Bridgeport Bank v. Dyer, 465. 

V. N. Y. R. Co., 1708flr. 
Bridgeport City Bank v. Empire Stone 

Dressing Co., 386. 
Bridges v. Berry, 548, 971. 

V. Hawksworth, 1674. 
Briggs p. Boyd, 792, 1190. 

V. Briggs, 1429. 

r. Cent. Nat. Bank, 333, 1599a. 

V. Downing, 67a. 

V. Ewart, 851. 

r. Hervey, 1051. 

r. Holmes, 1623. 



References are to 
paragrapka marked 9. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXXVll 



Briggs V, Latham, 867, 868, 876. 

r. Merrill, 781. 

r. Norris, 13176. 
Brigham v. Peters, 299. 

r. Potter, 204. 
Bright V. Judson, 896. 
Brighton Market Bank v. Philhrick, 
1121. 

r. Webb, 1203. 
Brill V. Crick, 154. 

V. Hoile, 1260. 

r. Tuttle, 16a, 60. 
Brindley V. Barr, 1012. 

r. Boyd, 713, 716. 
Brinkley c. Boyd, 713e, 716. 

r. Goi , 576, 1227, 1229. 
Brinkman r. Hunter, 496, 660, 661. 
Brinn r. Powell, 1729a. 
Briscoe r. Bank of Kentucky, 1716, 
1720. 

r. Huff, 1215. 

r. Kenealy, 1458a. 
Brisendine v, Martin, 1339. 
Bristol Knife Co. r. First Nat. Bank, 
16180. 

r. Sprague, 369a, 371, 376. 

r. Warner, 46, 162. 
Bristow r. Sequeville, 914. 
British-American Mtg. Co. v. Smith, 

1 182. 
British Columbia Mill Co. v, Nestle- 

ship, 1733. 
British Linen Co. v. Drummond, 884. 
British Mortgage Co. v. Tibballs, 1626. 
Britt r. Lawson, 594. 
Brittain v. Anderson, 800a. 
Brittain Dry Goods Co. r. Yearont, 

1770. 
Brittan r. Bank, 843. 
Britton r. Berry, 741. 

V. Bishop. 724, 726. 

V. Dierker, 1376. 

r. Koontz Harvey Co., 834. 

r. Nichols, 341, 640. 
Broadway Sav. Bank v. Shumacker, 

1306, 1310. 
Broadway Sav. Inst. r. Town of Pel- 
ham, 436, 440, 1620, 1533, 1640, 

1542, 1552. 
Brobston c. Penniman, 802. 
Brocchus r. Morgan, 336. 
Brock V. Thompson, 766. 
Brockway v. Allen, 403. 

r. Am. Ex. Co., 867. 

r. Comparree. 704, 709. 

V, Gadsden Mineral Co., 89, 643, 
1216. 
Bromage r. Lloyd, 64, 267. 
Brombridge t. Osborne, 1228. 
Bromley v. Com. Nat. Bank, 1620. 

c. Hawley, 186, 776. 



Bromwich V. Lloyd, 6. 
Bronaugh r. Scott, 1304. 
Bronson r. Alexandres, 713tf. 

r. Rodes, 1247. 
Brook V. Hook, 1352, 1362a. 

i;. Latimer, 80. 

V, Teague, 193, 770, 789, 810, 815. 

r. Vannest, 899. 
Brooke r. Smith, 1421. 

r. Struthers, 166, 835. 
Brooke, Recr. v. Tradesman Nat. 

Bank, 1642. 
Brooke v, N. Y. & L. £. R. Co., 1733a. 
Brookline Nat. Bank v. Moers, 739a. 
Brooklyn Trust Co. t\ Tolen, 136. 1608. 
Brookman r. Metcalf, 833, 1496. 
Brooks V. Bigelow, 334. 

V. Day, 966. 

V. Elgin, 1277. 

r. Hanover Nat. Bank, 1714. 

t?. Hargreaves, 41. 

r. Hatch, 16a. 

V, Hey, 793. 

V. Higby, 636. 

V. Holt, 673, 812. 

V. Hook, 1362a. 

r. James, 673, 812. 

v. Martin, 200, 869. 

V. Mitchell, 606, 608. 

V, Owen, 179. 

17. Stackpole, 709. 

r. Stewart, 1294. 

r. Wage, 183. 

r. White, 1289a. 
Brotherton v. Street, 688o. 
Broughton v. Fuller, 1390, 1401. 

r. W^est, 1390. 

r. M. & S. Water Works, 377, 
380. 
Broughton Bros. t\ Summer, 366. 
Brower v, Appleby, 305. 

t?. Peabody, 1731, 1760a. 
Brown, Ex parte, 680. 

V, Bank of Abingdon, 1014. 

r. Barber, 62. 

r. Barry, 930. 

V. Brown, 24, 1181a. 

17. Butchers, etc.. Bank, 74, 688a. 

17. Butler, 716. 

t7. Calloway, 832a. 

V. Chancellor, 617. 

«7. Clark, 373. 

r. Croy, 1306. 

V. Curtis, 1763, 1779, 1786. 

V. Darrah, 728. 

17. Da vies, 1506. 

r. Davis, 726. 

r. Dickinpon, 684, 701a. 

17. De Winton, 130. 

r. Donnell, 290. 

r. Dunbar, 986. 



XXXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked {. 



Brown i*. Fergusons, 9, 995, 1045, 1172. 

v. Kinley, 194. 

t;. First Nat. Bank, 859, 1404. 

V. Gilman, 102, 1276. 1281. 

V. Harraden, 616, 617. 

f. Hoffelmever, 796, 849. 

f. Hull, 81, 90, 642, 669, 724, 728, 
1095, 1095a. 

t\ Ingalls, 1537. 

In re, 1574. 

V. Jackson, 698. 

V. James, 206. 

V. Jones, 644, 936, 952, 978, 979, 
1385. 

V, Jordhal, 32. 

t*. Kinsey, 195. 

V, Kirk, 1316, 1318. 

V, Lacy, 1251. 

V. Ladd, 183. 

V. Langley, 81. 

r. Leavitt, 183a, 827, 831. 

r. Leckie, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1786. 

V, Lusk, 1569, 1596. 

V. Maffey, 1077, 1083. 

V. M'Dermont, 588. 

17. Mechanics & Traders' Bank, 
1165. 

V. Melrose, 422a. 

V. Messiter, 1425, 1473. 

V. Montgomery, 1269. 

V. Mott, 181, 726, 766. 

17. Olmsted, 1260. 

r. Parker, 294, 303, 304. 

17. Peabody, 1760a. 

17. Penfield, 11925. 

17. Petrie, 1146. 

17. Phillpot, 166. 

17. Powell, 1729a. 

r. Reed, 1405, 1409. 

17. Rouse, 273, 279. 

17. Shelby, 1260. 

17. Spofford, 70, 81, 719, 769, 812. 

17. Straw, 1376, 1395. 

17. Summers, 174, 730. 

V, Taylor, 575. 

17. Todrell, 210. 

V. Turner, 592, 725a, 999. 

17. Van Braum, 1438. 

17. Ward, 833. 

17. Weldon, 176, 203. 

V, Wilcox, 674. 

r. Wilson, 316, 928. 

t\ Winterport, 422a. 
Browne v. Coite. 513. 

c. Wiley, 70. 
Brown's Admrs. r. Garland. 1433. 
Brown's Estate, In re, 1417. 
Brownell f7. Bonney, 1047. 

r. Winnie, 1388. 
Browning r. Kinnier, 1117, 1120. 

r. Merritt, 713e. 



Browning v. Porter, 1236a. 
Brownlee r. Arnold, 835. 
Bruce i*. Bruce, 672. 

i\ Burr, 739a. 

f. Lord, 412. 

v. Lytle, 1104, 1144, 1157. 

17. Westcott, 1395. 

f. Wright, 717, 722. 
Bruen t*. Marquend, 1321. 
Brummagin r. Tallant, 1703, 1707. 
Brummel v. Enders, 145, 146, 175, 752. 
Brunback 17. German Nat. Bank, 854. 
Brunsen r. Napier, 1135. 
Brush r. Barrett, 1596. 

r. Reeves, 663a. 

r. Scribner, 775, 832. 
Brutt 17. Piccard, 1403. 
Bruyg 17. Russell, 164. 
Bruyn v. Receiver, 1691. 

V, Russell, 163. 
Bryan r. Berry, 276. 

r. Duflf, 816. 

17. Primm, 725a. 

r. Wilcox, 1104. 

17. Windsor, 717. 
Bryant v. Christie, 194. 

17. Damariscotta Bank, 1685. 

17. Edson, 634, 908. 

17. Lord, 1092. 

17. Merchants' Bank, 1092, 1004. 

1?. Vix, 834, 1733. 
Bryant et al. v. La Banque, 280. 
Bryden r. Taylor, 945. 
Bryson i\ Lucas, 306, 307. 
Buch r. Fluvanna Co., 1555. 
Buchanan 17. Drovers' Nat. Bank, 200, 
868. 

17. Findley, 9, 790. 

17. Kims, 1281&. 

f. Litchfield, 1537, 1538. 

t\ Marshall, 1096. 

V. Sav. Inst., 371a, 372, 832,832a. 

17. Wren, 715, 790, 797, 812. 
Bucher r. Jarrett, 1483. 
Buck r. Bank of State of Ga., 1312, 
1336. 

r. Kent, 1483. 

V. Merrick, 407. 

r. Smiley, 1312. 

17. Steppy, 201. 

17. Wood, 206, 835a, 1352, 13526. 
Buckalew 17. Smith, 1316. 
Buckhouse r. Selden, 880. 
Buckingham's Appeal, 24a. 
Biicklen 17. Hubb, 1397. 

r. Huff, 1373a. 
Buckley, Ex parte, 161.3. 

r. Briggs, 382, 384. 

r. Beardsley, 1764. 

r. Jackson,*^ 698, 6986. ? 

r. Seymour, 583. 



Reference* are to 
p(uragrQph8 marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXXIX 



Buckner r. Finley, 9. 

r. Jones, 775. 

r. Lee, 357, 363. 

r. Sayre, 18. 
Boehler r. McConnick, 729. 
Biiest r. Barrett, 1589. 
Biiettner r. Steinbrecher & Hertzler, 

357-359. 
Buffalo German Ins. Co. r. Third Nat. 

Bank, 1708a« 1708c. 
Buffalo Nat. Bank i*. Sharpe, 249. 
Buffington r. Curtis, 1743. 
Buffum r. Chadwick, 415. 
Buhrman v. Bavies, 832. 
Buie r. Buie, 1230. 
Building Assn. v. Leeds, 710. 
Bulger r. Roche, 884. 
Bulkley f. Butler, 142. 
Bull r. Bank of Kassen, 1243. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 611, 783. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Kasson, 67, 
1567, 1570, 1589, 1634. 

f?. Mitchell, 1227. 

V. Read, 1557. 

r. Sims, 429, 433. 
Bidlard r. Bell, 1672, 1683. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 10a, 729. 

r. Randall, 1611a. 

V. Thompson, 877, 923. 

r. Wilson, 1056. 
Buller f . Crips, 5, 6, 32. 

r. Heaue, 1711. 
Bullet r. Bank of Penna., 1478, 1695. 
BuUfin r. Clarke, 247. 
Bullock f. Loyd, 1205. 

V. Taylor, 54, 62. 
Bumpass r. Taggart, 122, 126. 

r. Timms, 65. 
Bunch r. Flavima Co., 1531. 
Bundy r. Jackson, 9, 13. 

V. Town of Monticello, 1612a. 
Bunker v. Barron, 1260. 

r. Langs, 1221. 
Bunn V. Commercial Bank, 1319. 

V. Grey, 196. 
Bunney v. Poyntz, 1279a, 1280. 
Bunting v. Camden R. Co., 1500. 

V. Mick, 819. 
Bunzell r. Maas & Schwarz, 770, 774, 

790, 814. 
Burbank r. Beach, 951. 

r. Posey, 403. 
Burbridge v. Manners, 1036, 1087, 

1233, 1235. 
Burch V. Hill, 591. 

r. Daniel, 1181a, 1395. 

r. Tebbutt, 1252. 
Burchard r. Frazier, 1267. 
Burchell v. Slocock, 104. 
Bnrchfield r. Moore. 1378, 1379. 
Burcker r. Langs, 669. 



Burden r. Southerland, 148. 
Burdick v. Green, 1260. 

r. Sewell, 1731. 
Burge 1*. Dishman, 81. 
Burgess r. Chapin, 738. 

V. Dewey, 1317. 

V, Fairbanks, 41. 

V. Merrill, 238. 

r. Northern Bank of Kentucky, 
1358. 

r. Vreeland, 983, 985, 1039, 1040, 
1041. 
Burgh r. Legge, 1047, 1107. 
Burhans v. Hutcheson, 8346, 835. 
Burk V, Gray, 1281. 
Burke v, Allen, 682. 

r. Bishop, 24, 26, 1618&. 

r. Dulaney, 68a, 81&. 

r. McKay, 586, 926, 928, 934a, 
991. 

t?. Napier, 174. 

V, UUh Nat. Bank, 503, 509. 

V. Wilber, 365. 
Burkham r. Trowbridge, 983. 
Burkhaus v. Hutcheson, 834. 
Burleigh v, Stott, 1215a. 
Burlingame v. Brewster, 1399. 

V. Foster, 1024. 
Burman r. Phoenix Co., 769. 
Burmester v. Barron, 1023, 1029a, 
1030. 

V, Hogarth, 663, 663a. 
Bumes r. Scott, 174. 
Burnett t\ Cecil, 1343. 

V, Hawpe, 249. 
Burney v. Ball, 24a. 
Bumham v, Allen, 86. 

r. Barth, 340e, 1612a. 

r. Gosnell, 1757. 

V. Merchants' Bank, 831 o. 

V. Webster, 1096, 1099. 

V, Wood, 728. 
Burnham, etc. r. W. S. McCormick, 

etc., 605. 
Bumian v, Jennings, 1317. 
Burnley t?. Tufts, 60. 
Bums r. Davis, 185, 1316. 

r. Kahn, 1578, 1661. 

V, Moore, 69. 

V. True, 1233. 

f?. Weesner, 204, 223. 
Burr V. Smith, 1222. 

V. Smyth, 1222. 
Burrall r. Bushwick R. Co., 1708^^. 
Burrill v. Grossman, 1738. 

r. Parsons, 679. 

1?. Smith, 674, 675, 1112, 1113, 
1116. 
Burrough r. Moss, 254, 686, 1430, 

1436. , 
Burroughs v. Bank of Charlotte, 1083. 



xl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



BurroughB v, Ploof, 832. 

V. Tradesman's Nat. Bank, 1642. 
Burrow f. Zapp, 1765, 1788. 
Burrows t'. Hanegan, 1135, 1180. 

r. Jemimo, 872. 

V. Keays, 748. 

V. Klunk, 1407a. 

i\ Millian, 1480. 

r. State, 1623. 
H.irHon r. Huntington, 122, 838. 
Burt V. Horner, 1769a. 

f. Walker, 112. 
Burton v. Bridgeport, 24. 

V, Brooks, 57. 

f. Dees, 1197. 

V. Dewey, 1769. 

V. Payne, 1483, 1649. 

V, Slaughter, 264, 1223, 1342. 
Bury V. Woods, 334o. 
Bush V. Abraham, 1623. 

V. Baldry, 1249. 

f. Brown, 867. 

r. Foote, 16a. 

V. Gilmore, 262. 

V. Groomes, 7966. 

V, Litchfield, 1543a. 

r. Livingston, 760. 

V. Pickard, 832. 
Bushnell v, Kennedy. 10a, 729. 
Bushong V. Taylor, 271. 
Bushworth v, Moore, 963. 
Bussard v. Levering, 627, 1005, 1021, 

1043, 1051. 
Bussey r. Whitaker, 112. 
Butcher t*. Carlisle, 55. 

r. Churchill, 1342. 
Butler r. Dubois. 444. 

V. Dunham, 1523, 1624, 1536a. 

V, Duval, 992, 995a. 

V. Gambs, 1311. 

1*. Horwitz, 1247. 

V, Joyce, 1484. 

V. Kimball, 1210. 

V. Munson, 725a. 

r. Paine, 56. 

r. Prentiss, 667. 

r. Stocking, 367. 

V, Webb, 1057. 
Butterfield r. Davenport, 90, 857. 

V. To'WTi of Ont., 803. 
Button r. Belding, 83. 

V. Trader, 800. 
Butts V, Dean, 1267. 
Buxton V. Jones, 590. 
Byars v. Doore, 306. 
Byers v. Harris, 314, 1314. 

V. The Bellamy Price Investment 
Co., 693. 
Byers et al. v. Tritch, 633, 713a, 1417. 
Bynum v. Apperson, 1060, 1070. 

V, Rogers, 764. 



Byon V. Carter, 1708d. 
Byram v. Hunter, 1162. 
Byrd t\ Campbeirs Printing Press 
Man. Co., 204. 
V. Holloway, 263. 
Byrom f. Thompson, 1396. 

C. 
Cabbell v. Knote, 834. 
Cabot Bank v. Morton, 731a, 740a, 
1358. 

V. Russell, 1024. 

17. Warner, 1003, 1005. 
Cadwalader v. Hartley, 800a. 
Cadwallader v. Hirshfield, 710. 
Cady f. Bradshaw, 1103, 1106. 

V. Nat. Bank, 326c. 

t\ Shepard, 700, 704, 713e. 
Cagle V. Lane, 175, 769a. 
Cahal V. Frierson, 704. 
Cahill Iron Works v, Pemberton. 1759, 

1764. 
Cahn 17. Pochetts, 1734a, 1749. 
Cahokia School Trus. r. Rautenburg, 

403, 443a. 
Cahoun r. Moore, 265. 
Cain 17. Pacific W. C. Co., 403. 
Cairo v. Zane, 1497, 1513, 1537. 
Cake V, Pottsville Bank, 719. 
Calder v. Provan, 187. 
Calderon v. Atlas Steamship Co., 1741. 
Caldwell v. Ball, 1737. 

r. Cassaday, 643, 645, 1685. 

V. Evans, 326, 1198. 

t?. Hall, 812, 1260, 1262. 

V. Lawrence, 1181a. 
Calfee v. Burgess, 170. 
Calhoun v. Albin, 727. 

V. Calhoun, 172. 

17. Davis, 81. 
Calif Nat. Bank i". Ginty, 205. 
Callahan i\ Bancroft. 183. 

17. Crow, 67, 68a, 181, 777, 782. 

V. Kentucky Bank, 669a, 1002, 
1228. 
Callaman v. Williams, 643. 
Callander r. Kirkpatrick, 1387. 
Callister, Matter of, 1260, 1623. 
Callon t?. Lawrence, 1237, 1241, 1242. 
Callow 17. liRwrence, 1199. 
Calvert 17. Williams. 207. 
Calvin t?. Sterrett, 205, 741. 
Camden v. Doremus, 668, 661, 1769, 
1769a. 

r. M'Coy, 707, 707a, 710, 713c, 
1769. 

17. Mullen, 250. 
Came v. Brigham, 382. 
Cameron v. Thompkins, 182. 
Camidge r. Allenbv, 452, 731a, 732, 

740, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1678, 1679a. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xli 



Camroer r. Harrison, 617, 1211. 
Camp r. Bates, 1048. 

r. Randle, 918. 

V. Knox, 1680. 

r. Southern Banking Co., 3696. 

f?. Sturdevant, 805. 
Campbell v. Alford, 1731. 

r. Allen, 1232. 

r. Baldwin, 1281. 

r. Brown, 758c. 

r. Butler, 713e. 

f. French, 619, 932. 

r. Hanney, 1623. 

r. Hodgson, 81. 

r. Huff. 815. 

r. Humphreys, 1229. 

r. Jones, 197, 198, 199. 

r. Kenosha, 1523, 1525, 1560, 
1561. 

r. Knapp, 1759. 

r. McCormack, 164. 

r. Miss. Union Bank, 1671. 

r. Nichols, 861, 868, 918. 

r. Patton, 166. 

r. Pettengill, 513, 1077, 1082. 

V, Robins, 719. 

r. Sloan, 207. 

r. Tate, 1338. 

V. Upsham, 80. 

r. Webster, 1158. 

V. Weister, 56. 

r. Wilcox, 124, 126. 
Campbell, etc., Mfg. Co. r. Boeder, 

834, 1221. 
Campbell Press Co. r. Jones, 1458. 
Campion r. Colvin, 1729. 
Camp's Appeal, 24. 
Campton r. McNair, 1769. 
Camwright v. Gray, 46. 
Can r. Read, 1615. 
Canadian Bank of Com. r. Northwood, 

1322. 
Canadian Mortgage k Trust Co. r. 

Kyser, 1458. 
Canajoharie Nat. Bank r. Diefendorf, 

775, 815, 819. 
Canal Bank r. Bank of Albany, 349a, 

533, 538, 1225, 1361, 1362, 1363, 

1364, 1366, 1372. 
Canham r. Piano Mfg. Co., 203. 
Cannan v, Bryce, 200. 

r. Farmer, 243. 
Cannon v. Canfield, 779a. 

r. Gibbs, 1787. 

r. Grigsby, 1401. 

r. Lindsay, 849a. 

V. Moore,' 777, 860. 
Canterbury r. Bank, 67. 
Canton, etc., Assn. v. Weber, 1198. 
Cape Fear Siank t\ Steinmettz, 960. 
Caphart r. Dodd, 406. 



Capital Bank r. Am. Exchange Bank, 

627. 
Capital Co. r. Merriam, 1222. 
Capital City Ins. Co. r. Quinn, 532, 

751. 
CapiUl Sav. Bank k Trust Co. r. 

Swan, 414. 
Capp V, Lancaster, 1685. 
Capps V, Gorham, 725a. 
Capron r. Capron, 43. 
Capwell r. Machon, 1222. 
Card r. Miller, 1387, 1388. 
Cardell r. McNeil, 739a, 1763. 
Cardwell v, Allan. 1090, 1151. 
Carey r. Green, 1694. 

r. McDougald, 1703. 

r. Miller, 849a. 
Cariss r. Tattersall. 1305, 1401. 
Carlin r. Kenealy, 48. 
Carlisle r. Chambers, 902. 

r. Hill, 753. 

r. Hooks, 514. 

r. Wishart, 832. 
Carlisle Deposit Bank r. Rheem, 1037. 
Carlcn r. Ireland, 1585a. 

r. Kenealy, 48. 
Carlton r. Bailer, 204. ^ 

V, White, 5fl. 

r. Woods, 204. 
Cannan r. Garrison, 1431. 
Carmichael r. Bank of Penn., 454, 

462, 1100. 
Camahan r. Lloyd, 573. 
Carnegie r. Morrison, 560, 661, 897. 
Camer r. Cameron, 369. 
Camwright <?. Gray, 162. 
Carolina Nat. Bank r. Wallace, 1013. 

1175. 
Carolina Sav. Bank r. Florence To- 
bacco Co., 710. 
Carpenter v. Famsworth, 103. 

t^. Longan, 834, 834a. 

r. McClure, 194. 

V, McLaughlin, 716. 

r. Murphee. 1290. 

r. Nat. Bank of the Rep., 827. 

r. Northborough Nat. Bank, 1369. 

r. Cakes, 713a. 

V, Page, 186. 

r. Reynolds, 1095a. 

r. Snelling, 122. 

r. Thompson, 1758, 1779. 
Carr r. Eastabroke, 1286. 

r. Howard, 1339. 

t\ Le Fevre, 1496, 1509. 

r. Nat. Sec. Bank, 1606a, 1636. 

r. Rowland, 713a. 

r. Shaw, 902. 
Carran v. Little, 51. 
Carrie r. Child, 112. 
Carrington v. Waff, 81a, 816. 



xlii 



TABIrE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked (. 



Carroll v. Bank, 334a, 336, 608<{. 

1?. Hayward, 776. 

V. Peters, 726. 

t\ Sweet, 1557, 1590, 1596. 

t?. Weld, 7130. 
Carroll Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 1623, 

1643. 
Carrollton Bank v. Tayleur, 550, 560. 
Carroway i?. Odeneal, 1289. 

1-. Odenhall, 13175. 
Carruth i\ Walker, 664. 
Carruthers r. West, 686, 726. 
Carson v. Bank of Alabama, 1015. 

V, Bank of State, 1056. 

f?. Porter, 815. 

i\ Russell, 454, 481. 
Carstairs v. Rolleston, 1335. 
Carter v. Bolin, 814. 

V. Bradley, 979o, 980. 

V, Brown, 581. 

V, Burley, 9, 927, 928, 945, 946, 
1039, 1045, 1047, 1053. 

t\ Dickson, 248. 

V. Flower, 465, 1047, 1083, 1084, 
1113a. 

V, Greenhow, 448. 

i\ Hamilton, 81. 

V. Martin, 1612a. 

17. Mascote, The, 1742. 

V. Mitchell, 359. 

V. Moulton, 67. 

r. Odon, 185, 793a, 1006. 

V, Sanders, 262, 263. 

17. Sprague, 693, 1147. 

V. Steele, 357. 

V. Tenblin, 1290. 

V. Thomas, 262. 

V, Union Bank, 9, 586, 657, 909, 
926, 936, 1023. 

V. Whalley, 369a. 
Cartwright v. Williams, 664, 1335a. 

V. Wilraerding, 1731a, 1734a, 
17346, 1747, 1750, 1751. 
Car\'er r. Hayes, 38. 
Carvick r. Vi'ckery, 684. 
Carville r. Crane/ 569. 
Cary, Exrs. of Greatorex v. Gerrish, 
1646. 

V. White, 1328. 
Casbome v, Dutton, 39. 
Casco Bank v. Keene, 1351, 1352a. 
Casco Nat. Bank v. Clark, 262. 

V. Shaw, 1005a, 1022, 1054, 
Case V, Burt, 492. 

V, Hawkins, 1311. 

f. Henderson, 1637. 

17. Morriss, 1387. 

17. Smith, 196. 

V, Spaulding, 720a. 
Case Threshing Machine Co. v, Peter- 
son, 1417. 



Cash 17. Kennion, 916, 1454. 

17. Taylor, 297. 
Cashman 17. Harrison, 80, 81a, 1073, 
1081 

17. Haynes, 53. 
Cason 17. Grant County Dep. Bank, 

1405. 
Cass 17. Dillon, 1524. 
Cass County Bank 17, Bricker, 196a. 
Cassebeer v. Kalbfleisch, 751. 
Cassell 17. Dows, 550, 560, 561. 
Cassidy 17. First Nat. Bank, 1703. 

17. Kreamer, 1033. 
Castle 17. Belfast Foundry Co., 400. 

17. Cleaves, 815. 

V. Com Exch. Bank, 339, 344. 

17. Rickley, 1754, 1767. 
Casto 17. Evinger, 1181a, 1373, 1398. 
Castor 17. Peterson, 93, 227, 242. 
Castrique 17. Battigieg, 717. 

17. Bernabo, 1212. 
Cate 17. Patterson, 1702, 1703, 1705. 
Cates 17. Thayer, 1312, 1319. 
Cathcart 17. Gibson, 1147. 
Catlin 17. Gunter, 751. 
Caton 17. Lenox, 5. 

17. Shaw, 1785b. 
Cator, In re, 1311. 
Catron i?. First Universalist Society, 

380 387 
Catskill' Bank 17. Stall, 368, 488. 
Catton 17. Simpson, 1387. 
Caulkins 17. Whisler, 845, 846. 
Caunt 17. Thompson, 972, 986, 1087, 

1176. 
Causey i?. Snow, 606, 812. 
Cavalloro 17. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 1750. 
Cavaness i7. Ross, 1289. 
Cavazos 17. Trevins, 712. 
Cavenah 17. Somerrille, 725a. 
Caverick i?. Vickery, 701a. 
Caviness 17. Rushton, 36. 
Cawein 17. Browinski, 1590. 
Caxton 17. Lyon, 84. 
Cayuga County Bank 17. Bennett, 1000. 

i\ Daniels, 17346. 

17. Dill, 1106, 1107. 

17. Hunt, 464a, 593, 602, 787a, 
831a, 940, 951. 1038. 

17. Warden, 978, 979a, 980. 
Cayuga Nat. Bank i7. Dunkin, 713. 

17. Purdy, 62. 
Cazet 17. Field, 199. 

17. Hicks, 1458a. 

17. Kirk, 54a. 
Cecil Bank 17. Farmers' Bank, 336. 

V. Heald, 8316, 1652. 

17. Hicks, 1458a. 
Cedar County 17. Jenal, 1245. 
Cedar Falls Co. i?. Wallace, 1075. 
Cedar Rapids Bank 17. Hendrie, 188. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xliii 



Central Bank v. Allen, 615, 1119, 1145. 

r. Davis, 694, 1109. 

V. Uammett, 75da, 769, 781, 781a, 
7816. 

r. Theim, 326a, 1425. 
Central Nat. Bank v. Pipkin, 796. 
Central City Bank r. Rice, 664a. 
Central Investment Co. v. Miles, 1769. 
Central Nat. Bank v. Adams, 1115. 

r. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 31. 

r. Connecticut, 1612a, 1638. 

V. Kryc, 365. 

f?. Hammett, 812. 

V. North River Bank, 1652. 
Central R. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 336. 
Central Sav. Bank v. Mead, 365. 

V. Richards, 496, 551, 551a. 

r. Shines, 17856. 
Central Trust Co. t?. Barton, 751, 895. 

r. N. Y. Equipment Co., 156, 834, 
1343. 
Chaddock v. Hanness, 1093. 

r. Van Ness, 710, 713, 717, 720a, 
721. 
Chadsej r. McCreery, 415. 
Chadwell, Admr. d. Chadwell, 74. 
Chadvick r. Allen, 99, 102. 

V. Eastman, 1414. 
Chaffee v. Middlesex, 1490. 
Chafoin v. Rich, 643. 
Challis V. McCrum, 670, 731. 
Challoner v. Boyington, 71, 1264. 
Chalmers r. Lanion, 726, 726a, 803. 

€>. McMurdo. 703, 704. 
Chamberlain r. Gorham, 163. 

V. Hewson, 243. 

V. McClurg, 1352, 13526. 

r. Townsend, 862. 

r. Walker, 354. 

r. White, 1289. 

r. Young, 27. 
Chamberlain Bkg. House v. Noble, 845. 

t?. Woolsey, 1266. 
Chambers Co. v. Clews, 1503. 
Chambers v, Hubbard, 1713. 

€7. Davidson, 1279a. 

r. George, 1245. 

V. Hill, 466, 472. 
Champion v, Gordon, 1569, 1573, 1574, 

1676. 
Champney r. Blanchard, 24. 
ChaniUer v. Calvert, 54, 55, 59. 

c. Carey, 41. 

V. Glover, 233. 

V. Johnson, 196, 204. 

r. Kennedy, 62. 

r. Mason, 1113. 

9. Norwood, 713a, 715. 

T, Parks, 238. 

V. Westfall, 713a. 
Chanoine v. Fowler, 946, 988, 992. 



Chanter v, Hopkins, 733a. 
Chapeze v. Young, 710, 1338a. 
Chapin v, Merritt, 183. 

V, Vt. & Mass. R. Co., 1500. 
Chaplin v. Sullivan, 1424. 
Chapman v. Annett, 1158. 

c. Black, 183, 206, 760. 

i\ Commonwealth, 1250, 1251. 

V, Cotterell, 870. 

r. Cowles, 1245. 

r. Durant, 1260. 

V, Foster, 249. 

V, Keene, 987, 990. 

r. Lipscombe, 1115. 

r. Ogden, 183, 777, 1060. 

V. Remington, 797. 

r. Robertson, 879, 894, 922, 923. 

V. Rose, 672, 848, 850, 861a. 

r. Steiner, 60. 

V. White, 1636. 

I?. Wright, 41. 
Chappalear v. Martin, 1230. 
Chappell 17. McKeough, 1222, 1341. 

V, Spencer, 1388. 
Chappin v, Taylor, 448. 
Chappie V. Durston, 1214. 
Chard v. Fox, 986. 
Chariton Plow Co. v. Davidson, 805. 
Charles v. Blackwell, 1571a. 

t?. Dennis, 719. 

V, Marsden, 724, 726, 786, 790. 

V. Rennick, 371. 
Charleston v. Gam, 1312. 
Charlotte v. Shepard, 1522. 
Charlotte Iron Works v, American 

Nat. Exch. Bank, 339. 
Charlton v. Reed, 42, 43, 44, 1378. 
Charnley v. Dallas, 1703, 1705. 
Chartres v, Caimes, 895. 
Chase v, Alexander, 16a (2). 

V, Behrman, 60a. 

V. Brundage, 1300, 1701. 

V, Redding, 24, 26. 

r. Taylor, 959. 

p. Whitemore, 62, 724a, 1708. 
Chase Nat Bank v, Faurot, 32, 284, 

1500, 1501. 
Chaters v. Bell, 939, 940, 1196. 
Chatfield t;. Paxton, 1148. 
Chattahoochee Nat. Bank r. Schley, 

286a. 
Chaudron V. Hunt, 1478. 
Chautauqua County Bank v, Davis, 

576. 
Chautor r. Hopkins, 733a. 
Cheek r. Roper, 466. 
Cheever v. Pittsburg R. Co., 816, 776, 
791, 796a, 7966. 

V. Schale, 670, 1797a. 
Cheltenham Stone Co. v. Iron Works, 

1260, 1276. 



xliv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked 



Chemical Co. v, Lackawanna Line, 

17340, 1739. 
Chemical Light Co. v. Howard, 174. 
Chemung Canal Bank v. S^upervisors, 

422, 427. 
Chcnault v. Bush, 203. 
Cheney v. Bilby, 643. 

r. Cooper, 807. 

V. Jansen, 800a. 

1?. Stone, 812. 
Chenowith v. Chamberlain, 9, 365, 581, 

582, 583. 
Cherd v. Ford, 56. 
Cherry Valley Iron Works v. Iron Co., 

1221. 
Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Paine, 

1708a. 
Chesbrough v, Wright, 831c. 
Cheshire v. Barrett, 230, 234. 

t\ Taylor, 1147, 1149. 
Chesmer v, Noyes, 968. 
Chester Glass Co. i;. Dewey, 1708a. 

t7. Door, 726, 727, 786. 
Chester, etc., R. Co. v. Lickiss, 63. 
Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 259. 
Chewing v. Singleton, 1478. 
Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. Swartz- 

ell, 80, 81. 
Chicago Marine Ins. Co. v, Stanford, 
1637. 

V. People, 1514. 
Chicago R. Co. v, Edson, 814. 

v. Sloan, 1741. 

V. West, 128. 
Chicago Tr. & Sar. Bank v. Kennare, 
357, 371. 

17. Nordgren, 713d. 
Chick V, Pittsburg, 1039, 1041. 
Chicopee Bank v, Chapin, 67, 181, 827, 
832a, 834. 

t7. Eager, 1013. 

r. Philadelphia Bank, 67, 656, 657. 
Child V, Hudson Bay Co., 1708d. 
Childers v. Boulnols, 36. 
Childs V, Laffen, 653. 

V. Monins, 262, 263. 

17. Pellett, 355. 

V. Wyman, 700a, 713a. 
Chilton V. Attenborough, 139. 

V. Whippin, 1205. 
Chipman v. Martin, 1274. 

V, Tucker, 854. 
Chisholm's Case, 1346. 
Chism V. Toomer, 1418, 1420. 
Chism, Churchill & Co. v. Bank, 139, 

1618. 
Choate v, Kimball, 202. 

V. Stevens, 51a, 52. 
Choisser v. People, 1538. 
Cholmely v. Darley, 152. 
Chom t;. Merrill, 713a. 



Chouteau t\ Allen, 45a, 282, 316, 779. 

r. Merry, 240, 246. 

r. Webster, 1025, 1027. 
Chrisman t?. Tuttle, 70. 
Christian i;. Keen, 532. 

V, Miller, 1429. 

17. Morris, 262. 

17. Parrott, 33. 
Christian County Bank r. Good, 

1195. 
Christman r. Pearson, 1219. 
Christmas i\ Russell, 16a (2), 23. 
Christopherson v. Common Council, 62, 

90. 
Chrysler t\ Rendis, 56, 831c. 
Church 17. Barlow, 992. 

i7. Clapp, 782. 

V. Clark, 601. 

«7. Fowle, 1373a, 1393. 

V, Howard, 1386. 

V. Maloy, 1317. 

t?. Swope, 95, 532. 
Churchill v. Bielstein, 814. 

V, Bradley, 185. 

t7. Gardiner, 63, 65. 
Churchman v. Martin, 62. 
Chute 17. Pattee, 1317a. 
Cicil 17. Mix, 713. 
Cicotte 17. Gaynier, 834. 
Cidne t7. Chidester, 45a (3). 
Cincinnati R. Co. v. Pontius, 1729, 

1729a, 1740a. 
Citizens' Bank v, Jones, 717. 

17. Lay, 1210, 1222, 1235. 

17. Leonhart, /96a. 

V. Moorman, 1318. 

t?. Peacock, 1713a. 

17. Ryman, 779. 
Citizens' Bank of Paris r. Houston. 

327. 
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Alexander. 
1612i 

17. Brown, 1481, 1703. 

17. Ferry, 748. 

t\ Hooper, 775. 

V. Importers' Nat. Bank, 1636. 

17. Piollet, 150. 

17. Richmond, 1414, 1415. 

17. Third Nat. Bank, 327, 329, 454. 
467, 476, 600, 1083, 1171, 
1172. 

17. Walton, 684. 

t?. Wintler, 812. 
Citizens' Sav. Assn. v. Perry County, 

1537, 1538. 
Citizens' Sav. Bank 17. Hays, 926, 960, 
970, 999. 

V, Mitchell, 24a. 
City r. Alexandria, 1523. 

r. Lamson, 1489. 
City Bank's Appeal, 360. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlv 



City Bank f. Cutter, 622, 629, 658, 
1048, 1212. 

r. Dearborn, 369a. 

p. Fanners' Bank, 1680. 

17. Goodrich, 713a. 

r. McChesnej, 369a. 

r. Perkins, 392, 1192b. 

F. Taylor, 1230. 

V. Weiss, 336, 698. 
City Elec. St. Rv. Co. f. First Nat. 

Bank, 790, 1201. 
City Nat Bank v. Bumes, 1596, 1621. 

r. Goodrich, 713a. 

V. Kusworro, 177, 857. 

V, Mahan, 1723. 

V. Stout, 1658. 

V. Thomas, 284, 573. 
City Say. Bank 9. Hopson, 1094, 1095. 

17. Reel, 1311. 
City of Atchinson F. Butcher, 1496, 

1600, 1533. 
City of Aurora 9. West, 1522, 1650. 
City of Bridgeport f. Housatonic R. 

Co., 1523. 
City of Cadillac v. Sav. Bank, 1531, 

1537. 
City of Deadwood f. Allen, 1221, 1222. 
City of Elizabeth v. Force, 1499a, 1500, 

1503. 
City of Fort Scott F. Sehulenberg, 

1215. 
City of Galena f. Corwith, 1527a. 
Ci^ of Gladstone f. Throop, 1545, 

1550, 1572a. 
City of Huron r. Second Ward Sav. 

Bank, 1537. 
City of Jeffersonville f. Patterson, 

1507, 1513. 
City of Kenosha r. Lamson, 1496, 

1497, 1509a, 1516, 1523, 1525, 

1564. 
City of Lexington f. Butler, 10a, 729, 

1496, 1497, 1506, 1516, 1537, 1542, 

1550. 
City of Lynchburg f. Norvell, 1533, 

1534. 
City of Muscatine f. Stememan, 122. 
City of Pekin r. Reynolds, 1514. 
City of South St. Paul f. Lamprecht, 

1537, 1539, 1540, 1542. 
City of St. Louis v. Shields, 93. 
City of Utica f. Churchill, 1708a. 
City of Uvalde F. Spier, 1550, 1560. 
City of Williamsport f. Common- 
wealth, 420, 1531. 
Claflin F. Briant, 664. 

r. Fanners' Bank, 389, 812, 1607, 
1609, 1611. 

r. Wilson, 319, 698, 698d. 
Ckflin Co. r. Feibelman, 644, 707a. 
Clagett r. Salmon, 1322. 



Claiborne Co. v, Brooke^ 420, 421. 

Clair F. Burr, 1172. 

CUnin f. Esterly Machine Co., 68, 150. 

Clanton r. Barnes, 809. 

Clapp f?. County of Cedar, 1500, 1524. 

F. Day, 1189. 

V, Rice, 703, 707. 
Claremont Bank f. Wood, 1332, 133.5a. 
Claridge v. Dalton, 1074, 1076, 1077, 

1307. 
Clark F. Adair, 23. 

F. Am. Coal, 1708. 

F. Bank, 1586. 

F. Barnes, 62. 

F. Barnwell, 1729. 

F. Benton Man. Co., 388. 

F. Blackstock, 1390. 

F. Boyd, 64, 267. 

F. Caldwell, 214. 

F. Clark, 24a, 1612. 

F. Conner, 884. 

F. Deaderick, 724a. 

F. Devlin, 1303, 1305, 1321. 

F. Draper, 1279a. 

F. Eldridge, 983. 

V, Evans, 1469. 

V. FarmerB' Woolen Man. Co., 32, 
383. 

F. Gramling, 80. 

F. Iowa City. 1489, 1514, 1516. 

F. Janesville. 1489, 1500, 1524. 

F. Jones, 156. 

F. Loomis, 751. 

F. Merriam, 713o. 

F. Mundal, 1260. 

F. Nat. Metropolitan Bank, 1587, 
1590. 

F. Nat. Shoe & Leather Co., 1367. 

F. Peace, 177. 

F. Pigot, 686, 695. 

V, Polk County, 422, 427, 435. 

F. Read, 32, 1312. 

F. Recker, 200. 

F. Reed, 1481. 

F. Ricker, 196, 204. 

F. Saugerties, 1171a, 1612. 

F. School District, 282. 

F. Seabright, 918. 

V, Sisson, 862. 

F. Skeen, 48« 54a. 

F. Tanner, 62, 218. 

F. Thayer, 790, 798. 

F. Trueblood, 1471. 

F. Tyler, 448. 

F. Wallace, 365. 

F. Whitaker, 746. 

F. Young. 1260. 
Clark Nat. Bank r. Bank of Albion, 

7796. 
Clarke r. Cock, 550. 

F. Deaderich, 724. 



xlvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
pa/ragrikphs marked %. 



Clarke i?. D^ Moines, 420, 422, 427, 
428, 1520, 1550. 

1?. Gordon, 505, 515. 

r. Hawkins, 1691. 

r. Johnson, 837. 

t*. Lazarus, 201. 

V, Marlow, Admr., 99. 

V, Martin, 5, 162. 

V. Moi-ey, 222. 

t\ Percival, 50, 53. 

r. Quince, 1473, 1482. 

V. Russell, 930. 

V. Scott, 1250. 

V. Sigourney, 64, 66, 267. 

V. Sharp, 1029a, 1030. 

t\ Sickler, 1469. 

i\ State of Ohio, 1345. 
Clarke Nat. Bank r. Bank of Albion, 

1607, 1610. 
Clarkson r. London Co., 334. 
Clasey v, Sigg, 834. 
Clason V. Bailey, 74. 
Clause V. Printing Press Co., 1423. 
Clauser t\ Stone, 54. 
Claxon t\ Demaree, 81, 201. 
Claxton r. Swift, 1284. 
Clay County v. Soc. of Savings, 1537, 
1547. 

r. Cottrell, 359, 725, 1437. 

V. Crowe, 1484. 

V. Edgerton, 1786. 

t7. Oakley, 996. 
Claybrook v. Commissioners, 1520, 

1533, 1540. 
Clayton r. Clark, 1289a. 

t7. Gosling, 89, 108. 1215. 
Clegg V, Cotton, .1074, 1082, 1170. 

t\ Lemesurier, 32. 

V. Levy, 914. 
Clemens t. Conrad, 122, 126. 
Clement r. Clement, 369a. 

V. Reppard, 174. 
Clerke v, Martin, 5. 
Clendennin v. Southerland, 728. 
Cleveland r. Sherman, 1714. 

i;. Worrell, 1484. 
Clewer t?. Winn, 843. 
Clews V. Banking Assn., 1606a. 
Clift V. Rogers, 1132. 
Clifton V, Bank, 62, 62a. 
Clifton Forge v, All^heny Bank, 1550. 

17. Brush Elec. Co., 1550. 
Cline V. Guthrie, 852. 

r. Templeton, 176. 
Clinton Bank f. Ayres, 1190. 
Clinton Nat. Bank r. Graves, 70. 
Clippinger v. Hepbaugh, 188. 
Clode t7. Bayley, 993, 995a. 
Clokey r. Evansville k T. H. R. Co., 

1489. 



Clonston t\ Barbiere, 716. 

Clopper V. Union Bank, 1260, 1335a. 

Clopton t\ Elkin, 204. 

(?. Spratt, 1311. 
Closson &. Stearns, 74, 688a. 
CIosz V. Mickelson, 594, 598, 1149. 
Cloud r. News Co., 812. 

p. Whiting, 859, 860. 
Clough V, Ciough, 24. 

V. Davis, 69. 

V, Holden, 600, 601, 603, 635. 

t>. Seay, 1411. 
Clouston V. Barbiere, 716. 
Clover, Matter of, 800a. 
Clower t'. Wynn, 146. 
Clowes ». Chaldecott, 1036. 
Cloyes r. Cloyes, 180, 1646. 
Clute r. Frazier, 782. 

r. Small, 1401, 1410, 1411, 1412. 

V. Warner, 1425. 
Coakley r. Christie, 812. 
Coates V, Donnell, 392. 

r. Doran, 1637. 

r. Preston, 1428. 
Cobb p. Bryant, 812, 1191. 

17. Titus, 766. 
Cobum V. Omega Lodge, 403. 

t7. Webb, 142, 1305. 
Cocheco Bank t'. Haskell, 392, 395. 
Cochituate Bank t\ Colt, 1681. 
Cochran r. Atchison, 669a, 672. 

17. Dickinson, 769a. 

V. Nebeker, 1373a, 1418. 
Cock t?. Fellows, 99. 
Cocke V, Dickens, 1177. 
Cockrill V. Kirkpatrick, 56, 81. 

(7. Loewenstine, 966. 
Cocks t7. Borrodale, 1196. 

V. Masterman, 1371. 
Cockshott V. Bennett, 194. 
Coddington f. Bay, 827, 831c. 

V, Davis, 929, 1095a. 
Codman r. Lubbuck, 1672a. 

17. Vt. R. Co., 666, 1458. 1514. 
Cody V, City Nat. Bank, 336. 
Coe V, Cayuga L. R. Co., 10a, 729. 

r. Wallace, 81. 
Coffee r. Planters' Bank, 678. 
Coffin V. Board of Commissioners, 
1538, 1551. 

(7. Hydraulic Co., 1187. 

V, Spenser, 41. 

17. Trustees, 183. 
Coffing V. Hardy, 174a. 
Coffman t\ Campbell, 496, 505. 

17. Wilson, 790. 
Coge t?. Palmer, 766. 
Coggill r. American Exch. Bank, 538, 

672, 1356. 1366. 
roghlin r. May, 725a, 786. 
Cohen V, Hunt, 600, 656. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlvii 



Cohn r. Dntton, 713, 713a. 

Colbnrn p. Averill, 1759. 

Colbwin V. Chattanooga R. Co., 1532, 

1533. 
Co% p. Coop, 1253. 

r. Parker, 815. 
Coldstone r. Tovey, 253. 
Cole r. Ciishing, 694a. 

c. Handley, 81. 

V. Hills, 398. 

D. Merchanta' Bank, 1777. 

V. Pennell, 230, 238. 

r. Sackett, 1260, 1266, 1266a, 
1275, 1299. 

r. Saxby, 233. 

c. Smith, 721. 

V. Withers, 1252, 1281a, 1293. 
Coleham r. Cook, 46. 
Coleman r. Biedman, 1197. 

r. Broad River Tp., 1523. 

r. Carpenter, 1036, 1043, 1209. 

t. Dunlop, 1238. 

r. Kwing, 1207, 1209. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1699, 1700. 

9. Riches, 1733. 

r. Sayer, 617, 626. 

1?. Smith, 965. 
Coler r. Barih, 834a. 

r. Dwight School Tp., 1537. 
Coles V. Trecothick, 277. 
Colgin V. Henley, 1765. 
Coliger t?. Francis, 768, 778. 
Colkett r. Freeman, 1036. 
Collett r. Haight, 1333. 
Collier c. Gray, 88. 

V. Mahan, 679. 

V. Nevill, 759, 764. 
Collingwood c. ^iercbants' Bank, 605^ 

1170. 
Collins, Ex parte, 1612. 

r. Blantem, 196. 

r. Bradbury, 51. 

r. Buckeye State Ins. Co., 305. 

r. Butler, 1118. 

9. Central Bank, 1682. 

r. Dawl^, 205. 

r. Denning, 1685. 

r. Gilbert, 728, 776, 812, 814, 815. 

r. Johnson, 687. 

0. Lincoln, 56. 

c. Makepeace. 1414. 

r. Martin, 8316. 

r. Panhandle Bank, 1198. 

r. Trotter, 88, 599. 

V. Wcstbury, 867. 
Collia 9. Emett, 136, 138. 
Collom p. Bizby, 719. 
Colombies r. Slim, 1199. 
Colorado Nat. Bank r. Boettcher, 499a, 

1636. 
Colson p. Amot, 677, 1470. 



Colt r. Barnard, 996. 

V, Ives, 1644. 

V. Miller, 1048. 

V. Noble, 992. 
Columbia Falls Brick Co. v. Glidden, 

1238. 
Columbia Nat. Bank r. Ginty, 1250, 

1316. 
Columbus Ins. & Banking Co. r. First 

Nat. Bank, 128, 130. 
Colwell V, Weybosset Nat. Bank, 360. 
Coman o. The State, 1317. 
Comb V, Killridge, 1317. 
Combs r. Bays, 1260. 
Comer r. Dufour, 1587, 1591, 1593. 

V, Steele, 1326. 
Comings t*. Leedy, 203, 775. 
Commack v. Conrad, 1475. 
Conmiercial Bank v. Barksdale, 681, 
586, 934, 940. 

r. Benedict, 1465, 1478, 1695, 
1696. 

V. Burgwyn, 166. 

r. Chicago Ry. Co., 1734a, 17346. 

V. Chilberg, 21, 1617. 

V. Cheshire Provident Institution, 
1777. 

r. Claiborne, 1190. 

r. Clark, 1157, 1221. 

V, Crenshaw, 156. 

t\ Davy, 748. 

r. French, 399, 1189. 

r. Grove, 1017. 

V. Hamer, 600, 656. 

r. Hart, 157. 

r. Hughes, 334a, 1170, 1596, 
1611a. 

f. Hurt, 1713. • 

r. King, 1041. 

V, Kortwright, 1708(;r. 

V, Law, 714. 

V. McDougall, 758. 

V, Newport Man. Co., 382, 383, 
400. 

r. Norton, 277, 283, 290. 

1*. Paddick, 815. 

r. Paton, 1402. 

t7. Strong, 1016, 1054. 

r. Union Bank, 341, 344. 

V, Vamum, 934. 

t?. Varum, 581, 582, 586. 

f?. Waters, 300. 

t\ Wood, 159, 1303. 
Commercial Mutual Life Ins. Co. r. 

Cleveland R. Co., 1500, 1513. 
Commercial Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 
336, 3406, 684, 698d. 

V, Brill, 389. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 775, 1585a. 

t\ Hamilton Nat. Bank, 334a. 

r. Henniger, 3266. 



xlviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked $. 



Commercial Nat. Bank t\ lola, 1522. 

V, Pfeiffer, 1731. 

t\ Proctor, 3706. 
Commercial Nat. Bank of Albany v. 

Clark, 1159. 
Commercial Nat. Bank of Clyde v. 

Marine Bank, 339. 
Commercial Nat. Bank of Charlotte v. 

First Nat. Bank, 1636a. 
Commercial Nat. Bank of Chicago v. 

Hand. 1642. 
Commiskey v. McPike, 1260. 
Commissioners v. Ballis, 1503, 1539. 

V. Bolles, 1537. 

r. Chandler, 1522. 

V, Clark, 803, 812, 814, 815, 1500, 
1503. 

t\ Pittsburg, 389. 

V. Ross, 1311. 
Commissioners of Craven County v, 

A. & N. R. Co., 925. 
Commissioners of Floyd County r. 

Day, 428, 431. 
Commissioners, etc. r. January, 1537, 

1544, 1547. 
Commissioners of Knox County v. As- 
pinwall, 389, 1489, 15096, 
1537, 1538, 1539, 1540, 1550, 
1554. 

r. Nichols, 1524, 1527, 1540, 1554. 
Commissioners of Leavenworth v, Kel- 
ler, 432, 434. 
Commissioners of Shawnee County v. 

Carter, 1558, 1563. 
Commonwealth v. Allegheny County, 
389. 

t*. Beaumarchais, 87. 

V. Butterick, 130. 

V. Chandler, 1345. 

V, Clune, 1350. 

V, Dallinger, 130. 

V, Donovan, 181. 

V. Emigrants' Bank, 1400. 

V, Emigrants' Ins. Co., 86, 1489. 

V. Foster, 1345. 

i;. Haas, 1311. 

V. Industrial Emigration Savings 
Bank, 1499a. 

t\ Johnson, 196. 

V. Kendey, 69. 

V. McCullough, 448. 

V, Mc Williams. 1523. 

«?. Parmenter, 76. 

V, Pease, 196. 

V. Pittsburg, 282, 589, 1527a. 

V. Powell, 667, 713a. 

V, Sankey, 1348. 

r. Simon ds, 1664. 

v, Spilman, 666. 

V. Stone, 1676. 

V. Thomas, 1664. 



Commonwealth t*. Ward, 1396. 

V, Watmough, 1708e. 
Comparree v. Brockway, 710, 716. 
Comptoir D'Escompte v, Duesbach, 

1229, 1623. 
Compton V, Blair, 1074. 

V. Oilman, 1586, 1587. 

V. Patterson, 1266, 12666. 

V. Smith, 1338. 
Comstock t/. Hannah, 775. 

V, Heir, 791, 794. 

V, Smith, 1267. 
Conable v. Smith, 1401. 
Conant v. Alvord, 311. 
Conard t\ Atlantic Ins. Co., 1743. 
Concord v. Pittsburg, 1431. 

V. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 1524. 

V, Robinson, 1632. 
Condon v, Pearce« 672. 
Cone V. Baldwin, 775. 

* V. Brown, 573. 
Confederate Note Case, 87. 
Congan v, Bankes, 920. 
Congaree Cons. Co. i?. C<riumbia Tp., 

1520, 1522, 1523. 
Conger v. Crabtree, 1406. 
Conine v. Junction, etc., R. Co., 31. 
Conkling v. Gandall, 1586. 

17. King, 1268. 
Conley v. Winsor, 815a. 
Conlin v, Cantrell, 248. 
Conn V. Coburn, 225, 1314. 

V. Thornton, 46. 
Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. 
Cleveland R. Co., 1495, 1496, 
1497, 1500, 1513. 

V, Westerhoff, 1458a. 
Connell v, McLaughlin, 292. 
Connelly v, McKean, 492, 1646, 1648. 
Conner v. Clark, 271. 
Connor t*. Bellamont, 894. 

17. Donnell, 759, 764, 865. 

r. Martin, 242, 681. 

V. Root, 24. 

V, Routh, 76, 1404. 
Conolly t'. Goodwin, 947. 
Conover v. Earl, 668. 
Conrad v. Fisher, 827, 1714, 1731. 

V, Kinzie, 69. 

17. Smith, 1236a. 
Conro t?. Port Henry Iron Co., 399. 

409. 
Conroe r. Case, 304. 
Conroy r. Warren, 1081, 1586, 1587, 

1588, 1596, 1652. 
Consequa €. Willings, 918. 
Consolidated Assn. r. Avegno, 1500. 
Consolidated Nat. Bank t\ Haves, 

1192a. 
Continental Bank v. Clark, 1335a, 

1337. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlix 



Continental Bank v. Tradesmen's 

Bank, 1362, 136Q, 1603. 
Continental Life Ins. Co. t\ Barber, 
1095, 1314. 

f. Dorman, 156, 1259. 

r. ContinenUl Nat. Bank, 832a. 
Continental Nat. Bank t*. Eliot Nat. 
Bank, 1708e. 

r. Folsom, 986. 

r. McGeoch, 62, 1289. 

c. McGooch, 52. 

V, Townsend, 787a. 

p. VVeems, 334a. 

r. Wells, 59. 
Converse v. Cooke, 1339. 

V. Johnson, 88. 
Conway v. Case, 1647. 
Cony V. Wheelock, 683. 
Cook r. Baldwin, 497, 497a. 

p. Barnes, 1274. 

r. Beech, 1262. ^ 

V. Buck, 1277. 

p. Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co., 871. 

17. Clayworth, 214. 

r. Coxwell, 1375. 

r. Crawford, 11. 

r. Barling, 616, 617. 

r. Forker, 69, 70, 762a, 767, 1021. 

V. Oilman, 1226. 

17. Gray, 616. 

r. Helms, 814, 827. 

r. Larkin, 803. 

r. Lillo, 87, 169. 

r. Litchfield, 868, 899, 925, 976, 
977 979. 

r. Martin, 646, 1084. 

r. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 969. 

r. Miltenberger, 550. 

r. Moffat, 868. 

r. Satterlee, 60. 

V. Seeley, 1613. 

V. Shipman, 196. 

V. ShuU, 1342. 

r. Southwick, 713, 713a. 

r. Tnllis, 336. 

r. Wolfendale, 509. 
Cooke V. Branch Bank, 358a. 

r. Brown, 80, 812. 

V. Darwin, 1483. 

r. Nathan, 1769a. 

r. XorAVOod, 728. 

r. Pearse, 174. 

c. Pomerov, 1215. 

V. State Nat. Bank, 1600, 1607. 

c. United States, 436. 
f'ookendorfer t;. Preston, 622, 623. 
'-oolbroth V. Purrington, 86. 
Cooley €, Rose, 1213. 
Coolidge V. Brigham, 731a. 

p. Payson, 561, 560, 1799. 

r. Ruggles, 41. 

Vol. I — iv 



Coolidge V. Wiggin, 703. 
^'oon r. Pruden, 354, 707. 
Coons V. Clifford, 1343. 
Cooper 17. Bailey, 668. 

V. Curtis, 385, 392. 

V. Dedrick, 1777. 

r. Earl of Waldergrave, 896. 

r. German Nat. Bank, 80, 724. 

r. Hocking Valley Nat. Bank, 
787. 

r, Jones, 532. 

r. King, 203. 

V. Meyer, 535, 538, 1365. 

r. Poston, 128, 130. 

r. Smith, 834. 

r. Town of Thompson, 10a, 729, 
1490. 
Coore V. Callaway, 487. 
Coors V. German Nat. Bank, 698d. 
Coostry v. Mead, 940. 
Copp t\ M'Dugall, 669a, 1113. 

V. Sawyer, 179. 
Copper 17. Mayer, 1603. 
Coppmann v. Bank of Kentucky, 1233. 
Coppock r. Bower, 200. 
Corbet v. Bank of Smyrna, 737, 1263, 

1675, 1676, 1677. 
Corbett r. Clark, 60, 51, 108, 110. 

t7. Fetzer, 717, 721. 

V. Hughes, 1245. 

17. State of Georgia, 41, 50. 

f7. Steinmetz, 47. 
Corbin v. Planters' Nat. Bank, 887, 
928, 959, 1033, 1044. 

r. Southgate, 547. 

V. Wachorst, 200. 
Corby t\ Weddle, 851. 
Corcoran v. Dale, 1419. 

t\ Powers, 751. 
Corgan v. Frew, 86, 688a, 1580. 
Corielle t\ Allen, 1317. 
Corlett c. Conway, 4976. 
Corlyn v. Brokmeyer, 713c. 
Cork V, Bacon, 97, 98, 100, 1587, 1590. 
Corn Exchange Ins. Co. r. Babcock, 

248, 1266a. 
Cornay v. Da Costa, 112, 141, 1128, 

1141. 
Cornell c. Hichens, 834. 

17. Moulton, 88, 599. 

V, Nebeker, 1407. 
Corner v. Pratt, 1108. 
Cornett t\ Hafer, 716. 
Corn Exch. Bank v. Farmers' Nat. 
Bank, 334, 341, 698(2. 

r. NaHsau Bank, 349a, 1663. 
Coming r. Pond, 750. 
Cornthwaite r. First Nat. Bank, 262. 
Cornu L\ Blackbourne, 221. 
Cornwall r. Gould, 1266. 



I 



TABLE OF GASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



Corn well v. Orton, 1343. 

r. Pumphrey, 56. 
Corp V. McComb, 1043. 
Corser v. Craig, 19, 451, 742. 

V. Paul, 392. 
Cortelyou v. Maben, 497. 
Cortland Wagon Co. r. L\Tich, 301, 

303, 305. 
Cosgrave t?. Boyle, 1001. 
Cosgrove t?. Fanebust, 1421. 
Costello V. Crowell, 150. 

r. Laths, 1735. 

r. Scott, 1047, 1077, 1170, 1172. 
Coster r. Thomason, 592, 999. 
Costigan t?. Hawkins, 733. 
Cota V. Buck, 46. 
Cotes V. Davis, 242, 252, 680. 
Cotten V. McKenzie, 204. 
Cotton f. Evans, 368, 

t\ Graham, 180. 

V. Simpson, 1389. 

V, Sterling, 803, 804. 
Cottrell V. Conklin, 713e. 
Couch V. Meeker, 68, 855. 

f?. Sherrill, 960, 1051. 

i;. Waring, 1306, 1329. 
Coulpart t7. Clemenston, 1770a, 1789. 
Coulter 17. Clark, 834. 

V. Richmond, 713e. 
County V, McWilliams, 196. 
County Judge v. Shelby R. Co., 1556. 
County of Bates v. Winters, 1523a. 
County of Beaver v. Armstrong, 1491a, 

1500, 1509b. 
County of Calloway v. Foster, 1524. 
County of Cass v. Giilett, 800a, 1524. 

t7. Johnson, 1535a, 1535&. 

t7. Jordan, 1535a. 
County of Des Moines r. Hinckley, 

16a, 16816. 
County of Green t\ Daniel, 1508a. 
County of Hardin v. McFarlan, 1555a. 
County of Henry r. Nicolay, 1524, 

1537. 
County of Moultrie v. Savings Bank, 

1637. 
County of Ouachita r. Walcott, 327. 
County of Pickens v. Daniel, 1508a. 
County of Ray i\ Vansycle, 1523a, 

1545. 
County of Randolph r. Post, 1523, 

1548. 
County of Scotland t*. Thomas, 1523a, 

1624. 
County of Schuyler v. Thomas, 1523a, 

1524. 
County of Tipton v. Lowenstein Works, 

1523a. 
County of Warren r. Mavey, 800o, 

16065, 1537. 



County of Wilson t\ Nat. Bank, 99, 

1496a. 
Courcamp v. Weber, 1385, 1421. 
Course r. Shaclileford, 611, 996. 
Court Harmony c. Court Lincoln, 183. 
Courtney t?, Doyle, 162, 713. 

V. Hogan, 719. 
Cousins V. Partridge, 1215. 
Coventry r. Gladstone, 17346. 
Cover r. Myers, 769a. 
Covert r. Rhodes, 22, 23a. 
Co^-ington t*. Comstock, 653. 

r. Threadgill, 204. 
Cowan r. Halleck, 5, 36, 39, 104, 161. 

r. Radford Iron Co., 88. 
Cowden t\ Elliott, 1428. 
Cowgill r. Linnville, 1343. 

t\ Long, 1561. 

t?. Petifish, 850. 
^ v. Robberson, 1221, 1245. 
Cowhick t;. Shingle, 1215. 
Cowie t\ Cornell, 188. 

r. Halsall, 1378, 1379. 
Cowing r. Altman, 83, 1632, 1633. 
Cowles r. Harts, 985. 

r. McVickar, 750, 764, 765. 

r. Peck, 1769. 
Cowperthwaite t*. Sheffield, 20, 21, 22, 

636, 991, 1636. 
Cowton V, Wickersham, 635. 
Cox 17. Alexander, 146. 

V. Bank of Westfield, 724. 

17. Boone, 1587, 1590, 1592. 

V, Bruce, 1729. 

17. Central Vt. R. Co., 1727. 

17. Coleman, 504a. 

V, Earle, 1254. 

r. Fenwick, 1281a. 

V. Hayes, 1623. 

r. Nat. Bank, 90, 479, 635, 639, 
640, 642, 644. 

f7. Peterson, 1729a. 

t7. Reinhardt, 1209. 

17. Sloan, 161, 184, 407, 1261. 

f7. Smith, 1458a. 

V. Troy, 63, 490, 493. 
Coxe t7. State Bank, 1672a, 1689. 
Coxon V. Lyon, 86. 
Coy 17. Stiner, 1192a. 
Coye 17. Palmer, 1702, 1702c. 
Coykendall 17. Constable, 316, 322, 

1222. 
Cozens v, Middleton, 793a. 
Coyle 17. Smith, 1596. 
Crabtree t\ Atchison, 859, 862. 

17. May, 237. 
Craddock r. Dwight, 1221. 
Craft 17. Fleming, 700. 

t\ Hendrick, 765. 

r. Isham, 17856. 
Crafton Bank t\ Kent, 1338. 



References ore to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



li 



Crafts r. Beale, 1330. 
Cragin r. Lovell, 303. 
Craig r. Brown, 694a. 

r. City of Vicksburg, 1500. 

r. Craig, 25. 

17. Dimock, 125, 126. 

r. Miller, 1250. 

i\ Price, 617. 

V. Sibbett, 174. 

V. State of Missouri, 1715, 1718, 
1719, 1720. 

r. Twomey, 1191. 
Craighead v, McLoney, 1376, 1386, 
1412. 

r. Peterson, 291, 316. 
Crain v. Bode, 620. 

p. Coldwell, 1163. 
Cram r. Hendricks, 776. 

V. bherburne, 1106, 1155. 
Cramer v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 933. 

r. Loder, 76. 
Cramlington r. ii^vans, 616, 1185, 1231. 
Crampton r. Perkins, 24, 789, 815. 

r. Zabriskee, 1522a. 
Crandall r. Schroeppel, 654, 1228. 
Crandell r. Vickery, 758c, 789a. 
Crane v. Clearing House Assn., 1712a. 

r. Dexter, 1219. 

r. Fourth St. Nat. Bank, 1712c. 

V, McDonald, 1262. 

V. Stinde, 8346. 
Cranson r. Gosa, 65, 70. 
Craven v. Bates, 922. 

r. Ryder, 1730o. 
CraTvns v. Gillilan, 299. 
Crawford v. Aultman, 834a. 

V. Branch Bank, 898, 920, 983, 
991, 1052, 1448. 

r. Johnson, 7^5, 784, 803. 

r. McCarthy, 24a. 

t7. Millspaugh, 1295, 1316. 

V, Roberts, 1260, 1294. 

r. Royal Bank, 1680. 

r. Spencer, 195a, 832. 

r. West Side Bank, 1376, 1578, 
1618a, 1660, 1711ce. 
Crawford County v. Wilson, 428, 432, 

434. 
Crawshay r. Collins, 2706. 
Craythom v, Swinburne, 1340. 
Creamer c. Perry, 1100, 1131, 1140, 

1162. 
Crears v. Hunter, 185. 
Creasy r. Gray, 62. 
Credit Co. v, Howe Machine Co., 386, 

389, 394, 775, 814. 
Cregler r. Durham, 369a. 
Crelle r. Loxen, 713a. 
Cremer v, Higgenson, 1771. 
Crenshaw r. M^Kieman, 616, 1209. 
Cresap r. Manor, 719, 1281. 



Crescent Bank r. Hernandez, 187. 
Creswell r. Lanahan, 317. 
Cretean v. Glass Co., 599, 974. 
Creveling r. Bloomsbury Nat. Bank, 

1636, 1660. 
Cribbs v. Adams, 581, 586, 617, 934. 
Crider v. Wagers, 1259, 1260. 
Crim V. Crim, 849a, 850. 

V, Fleming, 1311. 

r. Starkweather, 89. 
Crimp V. Berdan, 824. 
Crippen tr. Nat. Bank, 1618. 
Cripps «. Davis, 728, 783. 
Crisman v. Leonard, 248. 
Crisp f?. Griffiths, 1270. 
Crissy v. Interstate Loan ft Tr. Co., 

1777. 
Crocker r. Coldwell, 364. 

V, Gilbert, 1767. 

r. Gitchell, 719, 984, 992. 
Crockett v. Thomason, 1373a. 

V. Trotter, 1266. 
Crofoot V. Thacher, 867, 882. 
Croft V. Bunster, 748, 834. 
Crofts V. Beale, 185. 
Crogster r. Bayfield County, 1522a, 

1524. 
Croix V. Sibbett, 790. 
Crombie v, McGrath, 185. 
Cromer r. Piatt, 982, 983. 
Crompton r. Spencer, 703a. 
Cromwell r. County of Sac, 7586, 803, 
1458a, 1506a, 1517a. 

r. Hynson, 590, 943, 1017, 1145. 

V. Tate's Exrs., 32. 
Cronin v. Patrick County, 1, 99, 1496. 
Cronise v, Kellogg, 790, 1335a. 
Cronk v. Frith, 112. 
Cronkhite v. Nebeker, 144. 
Crook V. Jadis, 773, 1503. 
Crooker v. Holmes, 44. 
Crooks p. TuUy, 713c, 724a, 990. 
Crookshank v. Rose, 206. 
Cropley v. Eyster, 728, 812, 814, 1215. 
Cropsey t\ Avetill, 814. 
Crosby v. Grant, 787a. 

V. New London, etc., R. Co., 1512. 

V. Ritchey, 164. 

V. Roub, 689a, 690, 834. 

V, Tanner, 7266. 

V. Wyatt, 1317, 1789. 
Croskey v. Skinner, 1195. 
Cross t\ Hollister, 80, 717. 

r. Moffatt, 748. 

V. Wood, 1316. 
Crossan P. May, 90, 858. 
Crosse v. Smith, 972, 998, 1016, 1038, 

1119. 
Crossen r. Hutchins, 1172. 
Crossley p. Ham, 788. 
Crossman P. Fuller, 158. 



Hi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked (. 



Crossmore v. Page, 48, 88. 
Crosthwait v, Misener, 1200. 

V, Ross, 358a. 
Croswell v. Association, 1586. 
Croton 17. Delheim, 1083. 
Croughton v, Duval, 1339. 
Grouse v. First Nat. Bank, 330. 

V. Wagner, 1338a. 
Grout V. De Wolf, 859, 1351, 1353. 
Crow V, Eichinger, 203. 
Crowder v. Reed, 196, 316. 
Growe v. Clay, 1475, 1484. 
Growell 17. Hinson, 500, 043. 

t?. Plant, 508, 5 IT. 
Growley v. Barry, 592, 1023. 
Croxen t?. Worthen, 1153, 1158, 1162. 
Gruchers t\ Wolf, 1149. 
Cruette v. Jenkins, 800a. 
Gruger v, Armstrong, 1073, 1567, 1571, 

1586, 1595, 1620, 1652. 
Crum V, Corby, 8346. 
Grumrine t?. Estate of Crumrine, 74, 

573, 680, 686, 812. 
Grutchley v. Clarence, 145, 1194. 

r. Mann, 870. 
Cryst V. Cryst, 265. 
Crystal Plate Glass Co. v. National 

Bank, 1699. 
Gudahy Packing Co. v. National Bank, 

1659. 
Gulbertson r. Nelson, 27, 54, 108. 

V. Wilcox, 719, 1314. 
CuUum t\ Branch Bank, 827. 
Culver V, Ashley, 319. 

t\ Leavy, 684, 704. 

17. Marks, 104, 1588. 
Cumber v. Wane, 1266. 
Cumberland Bank v. Hall, 1387, 1418. 
Cuming r. Brown, 1749. 

t?. Roderick, 713e, 1115. 

V, French, 1167. 
Gumming v. Hurd, 326. 
Cummings r. Boyd, 827. 

V, Freeman, 36, 37, 39. 

r. Kent, 80, 1093. 

V, Kohn, Q9Sd, 1192. 

r. Morriss, 11926. 

V. Thompson, 814, 815. 
Gumpston v. McNair, 1769. 
Gundy v. Marriott, 669, 674, 1113. 
Cunningham v. Bank, 195a. 

i\ Davenport, 16126. 

r. Gans, 195a. 

V. Scott, 166, 775, 777a. 

r. Sraithson, 360, 363. 

V, Ward well, 128, 482. 
Cunyus t?. Guenther, 177. 
Curlewis v. Corfield, 1160. 
Curney t\ Behrend, 1730. 
Curran p. Arkansas, 1724. 

i\ Witter, 1703. 



Currie r. Boroman, 741. 

t7. Donald, 856. 

V. Lockwood, 39. 

V. Miser, 1623. 
Currier v. Fellows, 1341. 

t7. Hale, 81. 

17. Hodgdon, 747. 

V, Lockwood, 36, 39, 899. 
Curry 17. Bank of Mobile, 694a, 1043, 
1218. 

17. Reynolds, 486, 1218. 

17. Van Wagner, 1104. 

r. White, 370. 
Curtin 17. Patten, 236. 
Curtis 1?. Bemis, 1199. 

17. Clark, 203. 

V. Hazen, 104. 

17. Horn, 43. 

17. Leavitt, 382, 832, 1565. 

17. Martin, 1105, 1110, 1165. 

17. Mohr, 824. 

17. Portland Sav. Bank, 24. 

17. Rush, 1274. 

17. Smallman, 1769. 

17. SUte Bank, 1012, 1049. 
Curtton 17. Moore, 258. 
Gushing v. Field, 1398. 

17. Gore, 1583, 1596. 
Cushman v. Dement, 713c. 

r. Haynes, 53. 

17. Thayer Mfg. Co., 1708/, 1708^. 
Gushwa 17. Improvement Assn., 1265, 

1266, 1267, 1268. 
Guthbert t*. Bowie, 154, 156. 

V. Haley, 207. 
Cutler 17. Cook, 1435a. 

17. Welsh, 200. 
Gutter 17. Parsons, 179, 1260. 

17. Roberts, 856. 
Cutts 17. Perkins, 16a, 21, 23, 451,491, 

498a, 16186. 
Cutwillig V. Sturgis, 725. 
Guylas 17. N. Y. K. & S. R. Co., 1555. 
Cuyler 17. Merrifield, 290. 

17. Nellis, 1022. 

17. Stevens, 972. 

D. 

Dabney t\ Campbell, 629. 

17. Stager, 999. 

V. Stidger, 999a. 
Da Costa t\ Cole, 1244. 

y. Jones, 195. 
Daggett 17. Whitting, 790. 
Dailey v, Sharkey, 644. 
Daily v. Bartholomew, 666. 

V, Coker, 122, 125. 
Dair t?. United States, 856. 
Daist 17. Gale, 318. 
Dakin v. Graves, 966. ' 

Dale, Ew parte, 336. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



liii 



Dale r. Gear, 719, 720a, 721, 722. 

V. Moffit, 707, 713c, 716, 717. 

€. Pope, 81. 
Daley r. Brennan, 1226. 
Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand, 672, 676. 

r. WhitUngham, 422, 430, 

r. Wyker, 161. 
Da'v c. Butchers & Drovers' Bank, 
341. 

r. Slater, 992. 
Dana r. Brown, 1708<2. 

r. Kemble, 1019. 

r. National Bank of the Repub- 
lic, 1370, 

V. San Francisco, 422, 427, 431. 

r. Sawyer, 602, 603. 

r. Third Nat. Bank, 1636. 
Danber v. Blackney, 739a, 1763. 
Danforth r. Crookshanks, 202. 
Dangeriield v. Wilby, 1275. 
Daniel r. Cartony, 760. 

F. Daniel, 1418. 

c. Kyle, 1586, 1587, 1588. 

r. McRae, 703. 

r. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 336. 

r. Smith, 24. 

r. Wharton, 1312. 

F. Whitsett, 1407c. 
Daniels t?. Empire St. Sav. Co., 278, 
802. 

r. Wilson, 758. 
Dann r. Morriss, 667. 
Darbishire r. Parker, 612, 911, 1039, 

1046, 1330. 
Darby v. Bemey Nat. Bank, 101, 

1313. 
Darlard r. Taylor, 24a (3), 25. 
Darling c. March, 370, 1109a. 

F. Osborne, 724a. 
Darnell v. Smith, 249. 

r. Williams, 201. 
Darrach v. Savage, 452, 971. 
Darrington v, Alabama, 1723, 1725. 
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 378, 

379, 1519a, 1520. 
Darwin v. Rippey, 1386. 
Da Silva F. Fuller, 1233, 1461, 1618a. 
Daskam t*. UUman, 732. 
Daugherty F. Eastburn, 699. 
Daubuz F. Morehead, 221. 
Davega r. Moore, 105. 
Davenport v. City Bank, 1681. 

F. Schram, 700. 

F. Sleight, 148. 

F. Woodbridge, 741. 
Davenport Nat. Bank v. Homeyer, 

1727. 
Davenport Sav. Fund Assn. f. N. A. 

Fire Ins. Co., 321. 
Davey Bros. r. Naughtal, 1788. 
Davey r. Jones, 341, 1021a. 



Davidson r. Cooper, 1373a. 

F. Jordan, 193. 

F. Lanier, 142, 147. 

F. Powell, 688c, 730. 

F. Ramsey County, 1521. 

F. SUnley, 294, 299. 
Davies v, Dodd, 1196, 1475, 1479. 

V. Humphries, 1341. 

V. Stainback, 1336. 

F. Watson, 1371. 
Daviess County Court f. Howard, 422, 

1533. 
Daviess County f. Dickinson. 1537, 

1545, 1555. 
Davis' EsUte, 1260, 1300. 
Davis V, Allen, 350a, 352, 353, 369a, 
3696. 

F. Anable, 1266a. 

F. Bank of Tennessee, 1023. 

F. Barger, 70. 

F. Bartlett, 812, 814, 818. 

F. Bly, 816. 

F. Bowsher, 337, 8316. 

F. Bradley, 725a. 

V. Briggs, 354, 1183. 

V. Brown, 719a, 1217. 

V, Carlisle, 1373a. 

F. Clarke, 97, 98, 362, 485, 486. 

V, Clemson, 868, 894. 

V, Coleman, 868, 918, 1387. 

F. Cook, 369. 

F. Davis, 195a. 

V, Desauque, 373. 

V, Dudley, 234. 

F. Emerson, 1340. 

F. England, 80, 403. 

F. Eppinger, 1209. 

F. Eppler, 640, 1390. 

V, Enckflon, 834. 

F. First Nat. Bank, 341. 

F. Francisco, 1177. 

F. French, 262. 

F. Gallagher, 71. 

F. Garr, 101. 

F. Graham, 1316. 

F. Gray, 854. 

F. Guven, 1147. 

V, Gyde, 1274. 

F. Hanly, 1041. 

F. Helm, 104. 

F. Henry, 1385. 

V, Humphreys, 1341. 

F. Investment Co., 390. 

F. Jenny, 1418, 1421a. 

F. Jones, 85. 

V. Keyes, 3696. 

V. King, 341. 

F. Lee, 1245. 

F. Marvine, 762, 924. 

F. McCready, 790. 

F. Meisner, 185. 



liv 



TABLS OF OASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked (. 



Davis V. Miller, 5, 724a, 725, 775, 782, 
786, 10926, 1228, 1333a, 
1436, 1437. 

V. Morgan, 703, 717. 

V, Neligh, 725. 

V. Noll, 726, 1435a, 1436. 

V, Notioare, 1428. 

t7. Parsons, 1623. 

V, Pawlette, 800a. 

V, Peck, 686. 

17. Poland, 370. 

f?. Philips, 1245. 

V, Proprietors' Meeting House, 
383. 

V, Kamsey County, 1523. 

17. Reilly, 1199. 

V, Richardson, 122, 125, 126. 

V. Seeley, 775. 

17. Sittiff, 194, 741. 

17. Smith, 366, 370. 

V. Staats, 1306a. 

t7. Stout, 80, 81, 81c. 

t7. Thomas, 859, 860. 

17. Vice, 1221. 

17. Wait, 789a. 

t?. Wells, Fargo & Co., 1785, 
1785a, 17856. 

t7. West Saratoga b. Union, 383. 
Davis & Co. V. Howell Cotton Co., 356, 

357. 
Davis Machine Co. v. Best, 795a. 
Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Gibbons, 

1752. 
Davison v. City Bank, 542. 

t7. Robertson, 114. 
Davy V, Kelley, 80. 
Dawson v. Bank of Illinois, 80. 

r. Goodyear, 703a. 

r. Morgan, 1449, 1459. 

17. Real Estate Bank, 3266. 
Dawson Town k Gas Co. v, WoodhuU, 

812. 
Day 17. Elmore, 1767. 

f?. Nix, 201. 

V, Schofield, 1454. 

17. Thompson! 719, 1260. 

17. Zimmerman, 800a. 
Dayton Nat Bank v. Merchants' Nat. 

Bank, 748. 
Dayton v. Parke, 1738. 

17. Trull, 1269, 1275, 1276, 1278. 
Deacon v, Stodhart, 1223. 
De Aquila 17. Lambert, 1730. 
Dean 17. Carruth, 180. 

V, Driggs, 1713, 1750. 

17. King, 1733. 

17. Lozardi, 83. 

17. Newhall, 1291. 

17. Plunkett, 1431. 

r. Richmond, 243, 254, 1184. 



Dean r. Speakman, 1482, 1484. 

Dearbourn r. Union Nat. Bank, 286. 

Deardorf r. Thacker, 358a. 

Deardorff r. Foresman, 854. 

Dearing v, Rucker, 170. 

Dearlove v, Edwards, 62a. 

De Berdt r. Atkinson, 1172. 

Deberry t*. Darnell, 56. 

De Bignis r. Armistead, 199. 

Deblieux 17. Bullard, 1041, 1043. 

Debuys 17. Mollere, 1140, 1150, 1152. 

De Camp v. Hanna, 850. 

De Caumon r. Rasines, 1330. 

Deck r. Works, 1754, 1782. 

Decker, Ex parte, 148. 

V. Mathews, 1483. 

V, Union Dime Sav. Inst., 1611a. 
Deener f. Brown, 1568, 1569, 1587. 
Deere 17. Marsden, 827. 
Deering t*. Chapman, 204. 

r. Earl of Winchelsea, 1340. 

r. Thom, 305. 
Deering & Co. t*. Russell, 816, 1754. 
Deering Har\-ester Co. r. Peugh, 856. 
Deerman r. Trimmier, 824. 
De Forest i\ Frary, 41, 161. 
De Freest 17. Bloomingdale, 71. 
Degenhart 17. Short, 12816. 
De Groot v. Van Duzer, 200. 
De Hass 17. Dibert, la, 104, 105. 
Dehers 17. Harriott, 124, 128, 576, 611, 

617, 724, 1464. 
Deitz 17. Regnier, 357, 359. 
De la Chaumette r. Bank of England, 

903, 1468a, 1483, 1680. 
De la Courtier t\ Bellamy, 66, 83. 
Delafield t\ Construction Co., 1260. 
Delahunty r. Central Nat. Bank, 1599. 
Delancy 17. Stoddart, 330. 
Delaney r. Mitchell, 167. 
Delano r. Bartlett, 164. 
De la Torre v. Barclay, 932. 
De la Vega r. Vianna, 886. 
Delaware Bank r. Jervis, 733, 1269. 
Delaware, etc., R. Co. r. Burkhead, 

1789. 
Delegal r. Naylor, 916. 
De Lein t*. Trevins, 200. 
Del ins t*. Ca^vthome, 307. 
Dellapiazza i\ Foley, 1221. 
De Long r. Fyfe, 793a. 

17. Lee, 80. 
Demand r. Bumham, 1115. 
De Man tort 17. Saunders, 351. 
De Mets t*. Dayson, 1245. 
Deminds t*. Kirkman, 1041. 
Dempsey r. Harm, 1703. 
Demuth 17. Cutler, 1191. 

r. Old Town Bank, 834, 834a. 
Den V. Clarke, 213. 
Denegre r. Hiriart, 979, 983. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Iv 



Denegre p. Milne^ 481. 

Denick v. Hubbard^ 1388. 

Dennett v. Wyman, 612. 

Dennie v. Walker, 1123, 1145, 1209, 

1212. 
Dennis v. Morrioe, 1163, 1170. 

r. Table Mountain Water Co., 424. 

r. Williams, 1262. 
Denniston v. Bacon, 794. 
Dennistoim r. Imbrie, 222. 

r. Stewart, 939, 940, 943, 958, 
979a. 
Denny r. Dana, 204. 

r. Palmer, 1136, 1172. 

r. Seeley, 1311. 
Denston v. Henderson^ 1257. 
Denton r. Butler & Stevens, 1309. 

r. Livingston, 1708a. 

r. Peters, 712, 720a. 

t. Rodie, 360. 
Denver Brewing Co. r. Barets, 81a. 
Denauw r. Bank of Salem, 142, 710, 

713d. 
De Peau r. Humphreys, 922. 
Depew V. Wheelan, 1483. 
Depuy V. Schuyler, 728. 
Dem V. Kellogg, 327, 329. 
Derr v, Keough, 1406, 1407a. 
De Ruhl r. Maas, 748. 
Derry r. Duchess of Mazarine, 245. 
Derries i;. Schumate, 63. 
Des Arts v. Leggett^ 1482. 
Desbrowe v. Weatherby, 1379. 
Desesse v. Napier, 21, 23. 
Desha v. Stewart, 480, 683. 
Deshon v. LefiOer, 76. 
Desmond v. Norris, 124. 
Des Moines Nat. Bank r. Chisholm, 

184, 827. 
D'Esterre r. City of New York, 1635, 

1550. 
De Tastet v. Barring, 1444, 1448. 
Deturler r. Bish, 851, 852. 
Deuters r. Townsend, 725a, 1199. 
Dey V. Martin, 611, 1311. 
Develing v. Ferris^ 1133. 
Derendorf ' West Va., 184, 298, 399a, 

403, 1110, 1151. 
Devlin r. Qark, 815. 
De Voss V. City of Richmond, 1527a, 

1539, 1550. 
Dewey r. Cochran, 1190, 1309. 

V. Reed, 149, 162, 154, 1383, 1384, 
1385. 
Dewhurst, Ex parte, 1343. 
Dewing v. Sears, 1247. 
Dewitt r. Perkins, 778. 
De Wolf V. Johnson, 207, 894, 918, 
920, 924. 

r. Murray, 951, 983, 1119. 
DnVolf r. Rabaud, 570, 1767. 



Dews r. Eastham, 1211. 

r. Green, 1730. 
Dexlaux r. Hood, 616. 
Dexter Sav. Bank r. Copeland, 177. 
De Zeng t*. Fyfe, 793a. 
Diamond r. Harris, 724a, 725a. 

r. Lawrence County, 1500. 
Dibble v. Duncan, 719. 
Dick r. Leverick, 538. 
Dicken v. Hall, 1023. 
Dickens t*. Beal, 945, 959, 960, 961, 

1050, 1051, 1055, 1076, 1081. 
Dickenson r. Bankers, etc., Co., 789. 
Dickerman r. Miner, 1387. 

r. Northern Tr. Co., 1501a. 
Dickerson v. Burke, 728. 

v. Derrickson, 1769, 1786, 1788. 

i>. Seelye, 1729, 1729a. 

r. Turner, 964, 1156. 

r. Wason, 339. 
Dickey v. Pocomoke City Bank, 1343. 
Dickinson r. Anway, 422a. 

V. Coates, 1637. 

r. Dickinson, 369a, 3696. 

r. Fdwards, 924. 

r. Hall, 203. 

r. Hoomcs, 891, 891a. 

r. King, 1260. 

r. Lewis, 209. 

r. Marsh, 504. 

r. The Mayor, 1215. 

r. Valpy, 358a. 
Dickshied r. Exchange Bank, 24. 
Dickson r. Dryden Bros., 3696. 

f. Harris, 80. 

V. Mer. Elevator Co., 1734a, 
17346. 
Didlakc v, Robb, 186. 
Dierecks v. Roberts, 143, 843. 
Dietrich v, Bayhi, 62. 

V, Mitchell, 713o. 
Dietz V. Harder^ 1385. 
Dike V, Drexel, 366, 1245, 1605, 1623. 
Dill V, White, 94. 
Dillard r. Evans, 56, 1245. 
Dillenbeck v. Dygert, 1237. 
Dillman v. Nadefiiofrer, 1759, 1769. 
Dillon r. Dudley, 1458. 

V. Rimmer, 1273. 

i\ Russell, 1311. 
Dimond v. Sanderson, 241. 
Dingley t*. McDonald, 1221. 
Dingwall v. Dunster, 543, 544, 545, 

546. 
Dinley v. McCullagh, 26, 180. 
Dinsmore v, Duncan, 441, 1495. 

«?. Stimbert, 850. 
Dirimple r. St. Bank of Philips, 21. 
Disher v. Disher, 63. 
Dispatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy 

Man. Co., 404. 



Ivi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



District of Col. v, Cornell, 420, 436, 

783, 788, 1235a, 1502. 
Ditch V. Weston Nat. Bank, 340, 340&, 

340c. 
Ditchbourn v. Goldsmith, 195. 
Ditmar, Guardian of West v. West, 

185. 
Ditty V, Dominion Nat. Bank, 386a. 
Dively v, C«dar Falls, 420, 1520. 
Diven t\ Phelps, 1690, 1691. 
Dixon V. BoYill, 55. 

V, Dixon, 832, 1190. 

V, Elliott, 1158, 1163, 1164,1167. 

V. Nuttall, 88, 599, 619, 621. 

V. Spencer, 1789. 
Dixon County v. Field, 1543a. 
Doane v. King, 769a. 
Dob V. Halsey, 366. 
Dobbins v. Parker^ 835. 

r. Com. of Erie, 126. 

V. Etowah Mfg. Co., 387. 

V. Oberman, 28, 43, 769a. 
Dobree v. Eastwood, 1009, 1033, 1045. 
Dobson V. Espie, 542. 

r. Moore, 290. 
Dod V. Fourth Nat. Bank, 339. 
Dodd V, Bishop, 370. 

V. Denny, 88. 

r. Doty,* 84. 

V. Dunne. 838. 

r. lice, 800a. 
Dodge 1*. Bank, 748. 

V. Bank of Ky., 999a. 

V. Birkenfeld, 1230. 

t\ Emerson, 53, 1260, 12666. 

V. Haskill, 1418. 

f. Meyer, 1734. 

V, Nat. Exch. Bank, 575, 1571a, 
1618, 1663. 

V. Gates, 203. 

V. Perkins, 1458. 
Dodson V, Clark, 1221. 

t?. Taylor, 1000, 1001, 1328. 
Doe r. Bumham, 198, 808. 

V. Catamore, 1418. 

V. Newton, 1219. 

V. Suckermore, 1219. 
Doebling t\ Loos, 1260. 
Dogan V, Dubois, 795. 
Doherr r. The Etona, 1741. 
Doherty i*. Perry, 797. 
Dohmey v, Dohmey, 69. 
Dolan V, Mitchell, 1215. 
Dole r. Lincoln, 24. 
Doll f us t?. Frosch, 292, 576, 622, 634, 

1081, 1198. 
Dolman v. Grchard, 370, 488. 
Dolson V, De Ganahl, 80. 
Don V. Lippman, 878, 896. 
Donai v. Lutjens, 196, 815. 
Donaldson t*. Grant, 53, 60. 



Donaldson v. Means, 1162. 

Donally t'. Wilson, 1250. 

Done 17. Walley, 1341. 

Donegan v. Wood, 9, 581, 614, 946, 

947, 1050. 
Donelly v, Howe, 1147. 
Donelson v. Taylor, 1480. 
Donkle v. Milem, 1312, 1389. 
Donlon v. Davidson, 1590. 
Donley v. Tindall, 87, 170. 
Donnell v. Sav. Bank, 392, 1074, 1172. 
Donner v. Madison County Bank, 341. 

V, Remer, 1016. 
Donnerberg r. Oppenheimer, 726, 803, 

1339. 
Donohue Banking Co. t*. Sav. Bank, 

714. 
Donohue v. Gamble, 833. 
Donovan v, Frazier, 1250. 

V, Pitcher, 866. 

V. Standard Oil Co., 1729a, 1732. 
Donovan Real Estate Co. t?. Clark, 

1316. 
Dooley v. Smith, 1248. 
Doolittle V. Terry, 717, 718, 719. 
Doom et al. v. Sherwyn, 670, 717. 
Doppelt V. Nat. Bank, 334a, 1652. 
Dorchester, etc.. Bank v, Milton Bank, 
623, 661. 

t\ New England Bank, 341. 
Dore V. Hurst, 716. 
Dorian v. City of Shreveport, 1532. 
Dom V. Parsons, 812. 
Dorr V. Davis, 271. 

V. New Jersey Co., 1729a. 
Dorsey v. Abrams, 1607. 

V. Watson, 1157. 

V. Wolf, 62, 62a. 
Doss f. Peterson, 80. 
Doty V. Bates, 361, 369, 1361. 

17. Knox County Bank, 204. 
Doubleday v. Kress, 573, 574, 575, 

1230. 
Doud V, Nat. Bank, 1785a. 
Dougal f. Cowles, 362, 482, 1260. 1268. 
Dougherty v. Deeney, 1221, 1222. 

17. Savage, 194. 

1?. The Bank. 3266, 7796. 

V. Western Bank, 647, 1685. 
Douglas V. Bank, 656, 899, 945, 955, 

987, 991. 
Douglas County v. Minnesota T. Co., 

1740a. 
Douglass 17. County of Pike, 1526, 
1535a. 

17. Howland, 1767, 17856. 

17. Matting, 850. 

t\ People's Bank, 1727, 1731. 

17. Reynolds, 1755, 1773, 1785a, 
1786. 

17. Scott, 144, 713a. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked %. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ivii 



Douglass r. VVilkeaon, 102, 104. 
Doversy r. Kellogg, 375. 
Dow V. Moore, 407. 

r. Rowell, 809. 

r. Sperry, 1351, 1362. 

r. Tuttle, 158. 

r. Updike, 62. 
Dowe r. Schutt, 187, 860. 
Dowell V, Banking Assn., 1643. 

r. Brown, 1199. 
Down V. Hailing, 1468, 1595, 1633. 
Downer r. Cheeaebrough, 719, 887. 

r. Reed, 859. 

r. Remer, 980, 1024. 
Downes r. Church, 464, 482. 

r. Richardson, 191, 1401. 
Downey c. Hicks, 1260, 1262. 
Downing r. Backenstoes, 620. 

r. Gilsin, 725. 
Downs V, Perrin, 1736, 1760. 

V. Webster, 816. 
Dows r. Green, 1731, 1750a. 

r. Nat. Exch. Bank, 1734a, 1734&, 
17340. 

r. Perrin, 1750o, 1751. 

r. Town of Elmwood, 1660. 
Dowse V. Masters, 1260. 
Doyle V. Unglish, 634. 
Dracachl r. Anglo-Egyptian Nav. Co., 

1743. 
Drage r. Ibberson, 196. 

f?. Netter, 1291. 
Drake r. Chandler, 207. 

r. Elwyn, 361. 

V. Henly, 1217. 

V, Markle, 66, 713e. 1706. 

V. Mitchell, 1274. 

r. Rogers, 83. 

r. Stuart» 1215. 
Draper r. demons, 588, 590, 664. 

«. Cowles, 832. 

r. Hill, 1209. 

r. Jackson, 255, 256, 1184. 

r. Mass. Steam Co., 307, 400. 

V. Rice, 80, 1230. 

r. Snow, 1759, 1767. 1779. 

V, Springport, 1491 &, 1495a. 

r. Weld, 713a. 

r. Wood, 854, 1373a. 
Drayton r. Dale, 93, 227, 260, 536, 

1385, 1390. 
Drennan r. Bunn, 670. 
Dresler t?. Ward, 87. 
Dresser v. Mis$«oun, etc., R. Co., 566, 

567, 758c, 7795, 789a. 
Drew «. Hagerty. 24a. 

r. Philp, 573. 

V. Towie, 203. 
Drezel r. Presey, 710, 713a. 
Drexler r. McGlynn, 991, 1000. 

V, Smith, 366, 1375, 1377, 1435a. 



Dreyfus r. Union Nat. Bank, 361. 
Driggs V. Rockwell, 725. 
Drilling r. First Nat. Bank, 779&. 
Drinkwater v, Tebbetts, 1090. 
Driscoll r. West Bradley & C. M. Co., 

1708a, 1708d, 1708^ 
DroTers' Bank r. Roller. 1612a. 
Drovers' Nat. Bank t\ Albany Countv 
Bank, 1771. 

V. Blue, 7796. 

r. Packing Co., 336. 

t?. Provision Co., 664, 1599a, 
1603. 
Druke r. Heiken, 24. 
Drum V. Benton, 64, 267, 16186, 

1623. 
Drumm r. Bradfute, 964. 
Drummond r. Drummond, 131. 
Duanesburg v. Jenkins, 1523, 1550, 

1552. 
Dubois r. Del., etc., Canal Co., 298. 

V, Mason, 130, 707a. 
Du Bose r. Weddon, 226. 
Dubreys v. Farmer, 622. 
Dubuque Co. r. R. Co., 1623. 
Du Carry i;. Gill, 276. 
Ducarse v. Keyser, 748a. 
Ducket v. Van Lilienthal, 966, 963. 
Duckett v. Bank of Balto., 1633. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1612a. 
Du Clos r. Batcheller, 177. 
Dudgeon r. Haggart, 1267. 
Dudman f. Earl, 1478. 
Duerson v, Alsop, 815. 
Duerson's Admr. r. Alsop, 629, 814, 

815, 817, 896, 898, 970. 
Duff r. East India Co., 1614. 
Duffield r. Elwes, 24. 
Duffy 17. Hobson, 122. 

r. O'Connor, 688c, 1092a. 

In re, 92, 143a. 
Dufour r. Morse, 1130, 1142. 

V. Oxenden, 497, 497a. 
Dugan r. Campbell, 56. 

r. U. S.. 443, 576, 687, 1189a, 
1198, 1227, 1229, 1230, 
1230a. 
Duggan V, King, 1125, 1216. 
Duhammel v. Pickering, 221. 
Duke r. Cahaba Co., 1708^. 

r. Christy. 1340. 

r. Clark, 7266. 
Duke of Norfolk r. Howard, 654. 
Duker v. Franz, 1403. 
Dulaney v. Payne, 1186a. 
Dulling r. Weeks, 1340. 
Dumont r. Pope, 470, 474, 966. 

f. Williamson, 670. 
Dunbar r. Dunbar, 24, 24a. 

r. Marden, 112. 

r. Smith, 568. 



Iviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



Dunbar t?. Tyler, 1070, 1076. 
Duncan v. Berlin, 1636, 1643, 1644. 

r. Course, 9. 

V. Jaudan, 1612a. 

V. Kirtley, 303. 

r. Louisville, 51, 834. 

f. McCullough, 1144. 
. F. Nells, 307. 

r. N. & 8o. Wales Bank, 1343. 

r. Pope, 866. 

r. Scott, 857. 

v. Sparrow, 899. 
Duncan &. Sherman v. Gilbert, 832a. 
Dundas v. Bowler, 899. 
Dundee Mort. A Trust Co. r. Nixon, 

869. 
Dunham v. Packing Co., 842. 

V. Peterson. 831a, 831b, 832. 
Duninger v. Miller, 1035, 1038. 
Dunkerson, In re, 1708(2. 
Dunkle r. Nichols, 89, 617. 
Dunlap V. Hales. 232. 

V. Smith, 1689. 

r. Thompson, 1032. 
Dunn V. Adams, 5, 891. 

V. Clements, 1400. 

r. Ghost, 719. 757. 

r. Meserve, 664. 

r. O'Keefe, 454. 

r. Parsons, 1311. 

V, Snell, 748. 

V. Weston, 726, 786, 793a. 
Dunnegan v. Stevens, 867, 873, 902. 
Dunning v. Heller, 6386. 
Dunovan r. Flynn, 504. 
Dunfihee r. Carothers, 769a. 
Dupays v. Shepherd, 487. 
Dupeau v. Waddington, 827. 
Dupont V. Mt. Pleasants Ferry Co., 

1188. 
Duramus r. Harrison, 1428. 
Duran v. Ayer, 1458a. 
Durant v. Banta, 762a, 763, 767. 

V. Iowa Co., 800a, 1500. 

V, Murdock, 105. 
Durden v. Smith, 1060, 1070. 
Durein v. Moeser, 781a, 812. 
Durgin v, Bartol, 105. 
Durham v. Donner, 1338. 

t\ Manrow, 1779. 

r. Price, 1133, 1779. 
Durkin t?. Cranston, 112. 
Durland f. Durland, 164. 
Dumford v, Patterson, 633. 
Durrum r. Hendrick, 1084. 
Duryee t>. Dennison, 1147. 
Dusenbury v. Albright, 94, 1388. 

V. Ellis, 306. 
Dusser r. M. & T. R. Co., 7796. 
Dutch f. Boyd, 101. 
Dutcher r. Porter, 71. 



Dutchess County Bank r. Ibbottson, 
959. 

t\ Davis, 47. 
Dutchess Cotton Mfg. Co. v, Davia, 

620. 
Dutton r. Bratt, 1103. 

r. Ives, 834. 

r. Marsh, 408. 

r. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1712c. 
Duvall V. Farmers' Bank, 1092&, 1130, 

1135. 
Dwight V, Emerson, 611, 996. 

r. Newell, 266, 680. 

V. Scovil, 1087. 
Dwinnell v. McKibben, 1317, 1325. 
Dwyar v, Shenkbey, 1325, 1326. 
Dwyer v. Railroad Co., 17336. 
Dyas V, Hanson, 466, 605, 1590. 
Dye V, Scott, 1093. 
Dyer t?. Covington Township, 432, 434. 

V. Gilson, 1763. 
Dygert r. Vermont L. & T. Co., 879, 

923. 
Dykers v. Leather Bank, 1584, 1617a. 

V. Townsend, 303. 
Dykman r. North Bridge, 183, 656, 

7796. 
Dymock r. Ry. Co., 795a, 1749. 

E. 

Eadie r. Ashbaugh, 318, 319, 321. 
Eagle Bank t\ Chapin, 1039, 1051. 

a Hathaway, 992, 995, 1005a, 
1006, 1011, 1014. 

r. Smith, 740, 1675. 
Eames v. Crosier, 663a, 815. 

V. Rosier, 724a, 819. 
Eames Brake Co. v. Rosier, 1289. 
Earhart v. Gant, 781. 
Earl V. Peck, 180. 

Earl of Shrewsbury v. North Stafford- 
shire R. Co., 377. 
Earle v. Reed, 226. 

V. Robinson, 177, 205, 206. 

t\ Foster, 713c. 
Early v. Preston, 970, 1052. 

V, Wilkinson & Hunt, 298, 300. 
Earnest 17. Barrett, 668, 669a, 730. 

V, Taylor, 1116. 
Easeley v. Crockford, 774. 
Easterly v. Barber, 703. 
Eastern Bank v. Brown, 1023. 
East Haddam Bank v, Savill, 341. 
East Hartford r. Hartford Co., 1519a. 
East India Co. r. Tritton, 672, 670. 
East River Bank v, Butterworth, 1266. 
Eastman r. Commonwealth, 1664. 

r. Plumer, 1221, 1222, 1236. 

p. Shaw, 751. 758, 

V. Turman, 983, 998. 



Referencea are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



lix 



Kaston r. German- Am. Bank, 1278, 
12i8a. 

r. Isabel], 635. 

r. Prachett, 174, 180. 
East RiTer Nat. Bank r. Gove, 389. 
Eastwood r. Kenyon. 182, 240. 
Eaton r. Alger, 1102b. 

r. Boessonault, 1458a. 
.V. Dennis, 719. 

r. Emerson, 80. 

p. Libbey, 179. 

p. McMahon, 719, 1445. 

F. Whitmore, 1316. 
Eavans r. Secrest, 242. 
Eaves r. Eberhart, 710. 

r. Henderson, 81. 

r. Reed, 226. 
Ebersole v. Ridding, 1233. 
Eccles r. Ballard, 612, 663a. 
Eeker v. First Nat. Bank. 392. 
Eckert r. Louis, 1373a, 1390. 

r. Pickel, 1411. 
Eckhert p. Ellis, 726, 805. 
Eokman P. Scott, 248. 
Ecpert p. Condres, 611. 
Eddy P. Bond, 205, 1392. 
Edelen P. White, 1303. 

p. Worth, 154. 
Edgecomb r. Dowe, 196. 
Edgerly r. Shaw, 230. 
Edie p. East India Co., 623, 698. 
Edis p. Bury, 131. 
Edison r. Edison, 1340. 
Edison Electric Co. r. Blount, 205. 
Edison Greneral Electric Co. c. Zibley, 

713<f. 
Edisto Phosphate Co. r. Standford, 

164. 
Edmonston p. Gilbert, 331, 1005a. 
Edmunds p. Cates, 983. 

r. Diggs, 737, 1672, 1675, 1677. 

c. Groves, 177. 

r. Rose, 675. 
Edmundson v, Drake, 1785a. 
Edon P. Smyth, 1286. 
Edson r. Angell, 336, 698d. 

p. Fuller, 550. 

r. Jacobs, 1017. 
Edwards v. Bates Co., 1509. 

r. Bohannon, 1281b. 

r. Brewer, 1730a. 

r. Brown, 850. 

r. Chair Co., 1319. 

r. Dick, 674. 

r. Jones, 758. 

r. McKee, 1478. 

p. Moses, 1586, 1620. 

V. Ramsey, 59. 

p. Scull, 1195. 

p. Thomas, 283, 284, 775, 796b. 

r. Wagner, 741. 



Effinger p. Richards, 150, 154. 
Egan r. Fuller, 1266b. 
Egerton p. Fulton Nat. Bank, 326b. 
Eggan p. Briggs, 1192. 
Eggemann p. Henschen, 1310. 
Eggleston p. Mason k Co., 359. 
Ehle c. Chittenango Bank, 56. 
Ehrichs p. De Mill, 16o, 50. 
Eichelberger p. Bank, 815, 843, 1181a. 

p. Findley, 1078, 1586, 1588, 1596. 
Eichner r. Bowerv Bank, 1571. 
Eilbert p. Finkbeiner, 713d. 
Eisner p. Kelley, 1329. 
Elbert r. McClelland, 1418. 
Eldred p. Malloy, 40, 41, 195. 
Elford P. Teed, 464a, 650. 
Elp:in p. Hill, 725a, 1233. 
Ellas p. Finnegan, 784. 
Ellerslaw P. Magniac, 1734a. 
Ellett P. Britton, 51. 
Ellicott r. Martin, 165, 775, 814. 
Ellinger's Appeal, 94, 361. 
Elliott c. Abbott, 1190. 

p. Armstrong, 741. 

p. Deason, 67, 145, 725. 

p. Dudley, 367. 

p. Giess, 1764. 

p. Ince, 210. 

p. Lawhead, 248. 

p. Levings, 1406. 

p. Martin, 165, 775. 

p. Wheeler, 1584. 

p. White,. 966. 
Ellis r. Brown, 713e. 

p. Com. Bank, 582, 1021, 1118. 

p. Ellis, 40. 

p. Francis, 277. 

p. Mason, 40. 

p. McLemore, 103. 

p. Ohio Life Ins. Co., 533, 1361, 
1362, 1367, 1371, 1372, 1657. 

p. Handle, 159. 

p. Wheeler, 96, 1584. 

p. Wild, 731a. 
Ellison r. Chesnut, 146. 

p. Collingride, 35, 1581. 

p. Jackson Water Co., 316. 
Ellsworth p. Brewer, 694a, 1204, 1223. 

V. Fogff, 1289. 

0. Hopkins, 241. 
Elminger v. Drew, 202, 203. 
Elson p. Denny, 1243. 
Elting p. Brinkerhoff, 1571. 
Elwell p. Dodge, 304. 

p. Puget Sound R. Co., 387. 

r. Tatum, 806. 
Elwood p. Diefendorf, 1266a. 
Ely r. Clute, 94. 

r. James, 1260. 

V. Kilborn, 81. 
Elyton & Co. v. Hood, 1312. 



Ix 



TABLC: OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



Emanuel v. White, 832. 
Emblen f. Dartnell, 642. 
Emerson v. Crocker, 782. 

t7. Cutts, 694a. 

t'. Murray, 154, 1.421. 

r. Opps, 1388. 

V. Providence Hat Mfg. Ck)., 277, 
294, 400, 401. 
Emery v. Hobson, 1090, 1687, 1589. 

t?. Irving Nat. Bank, 1730, 1731, 
1734, 1734a, 1734c, 1736, 
1750. 

V. Mariaville, 435. 

V, Vinall, 66. 
Emley v. Perrine, 742. 
Emly, Ea parte, 360. 

V, Lye, 360, 739. 
Emmatt c. Kearns, 1766. 
Emmett v. Tettenham, 1192a, 1199. 
Emmons v. Meeker, 143. 
Emory r. Clough, 24a, 26o. 
Empire Trans. Co. v. Steele, 1731. 
Empire v. Darlington, 1536. 
Emporia Nat. Bank r. Shotwell, 139, 

1663. 
Englehart r. Peoria Plow Co., 41, 282. 
English r. Darley, 1305, 1307, 1326, 
1327. 

V. Wafles, 8346. 

r. Wall, 481, 1073. 
Enthoven p. Hoyle, 102, 148. 
Entwistle, In re, 110. 
Epler V. Funk, 725, 1437. 
Eppens V, Forbes, 71 36. 
Eppert t?. Hall, 63, 1767. 
Epps t\ Dillaye, 1272. 

V. Waring, 81b. 
Epting i;.. Jones, 1185. 
Equitable Marine Ins. Co. v. Adams, 

694, 740a. 
Equitable Nat. Bank t. G. & S. Co., 

1623. 
Erickson r. Frost, 1390. 

t\ Inman, 480, 4976. 

t?. Roehm, 859. 
Erhart P. Dietrich, 1206, 1228, 1229. 
Erie Bank p. Smith, Randolph k Co., 

286. 
Erie Boot & Shoe Co. v, Eichenlaub, 

7690. 
Erie Dispatch Co. r. St. Lbuis Co., 

1747a. 
Ern V. Rubinstein, 815. 
Ernst r. Steckman, 44, 45a. 
Erskine r. Steele County, 377, 427. 
Erwin r. Adams, 1119. 

V. Carroll, 262. 

p. Downs, 592, 675. 

r. Lynn, 696a. 

r. Sanders, 158. 
Erwin Paper Co. r. Nat. Bank, 101. 



Esau p. Green County, 812. 
Esdaile r. Lanauze, 281, 292. 

p. Sowerby, 1172. 
Esley P. People of Illinois, 101. 
Espy P. Bank of Cincinnati, 559. 1568, 

1569, 1603, 1606a, 1661. 
Essex County p. Edmonds, 713. 
Essex County Nat. Bank p. Bank of 

Montreal, 835. 
Estabrook p. Kyle, 884. 

p. Smith, 1183. 

p. Swett, 1226. 
Estate of Davis p. Desauque, 1300. 
Estate of Littell, 789. 
Estes p. Kyle, 884. 

p. Tower, 1209, 1210. 
Etheridge p. Gallagher, 174, 769a. 

P. Ladd, 654. 

p. Parker, 742. 
Ething p. Schuylkill Bank, 983. 
Etna Ins. Co. p. Alton City Bank, 341« 

p. Mayor, 1223. 
Etten P. Howell, 80. 
Etting p. Schuylkill Bank, 984, 1045. 
1053. 

p. Vanderlyn, 827. 
Ettlinger p. Carpet Co., 1509. 
Etz P. Place, 81a, 1379, 1757. 
European Bank, In re, 726b. 
Evans p. Anderson, 867. 

p. Baker, 156. 

p. Cramlington, 685, 698a. 

p. Drummond, 1295, 1299. 

V. Evans, 1613. 

p. Foreman, 1412. 

p. Gale, 1226. 

p. Gee, 669, 694. 

p. Gordon, 1198. 

v. Kneeland, 1309. 

p. Kymer, 790. 

V. Prosser, 1425. 

p. Speir Hardware Co., 792. 

p. St. John, 656. 

p. Stuhrberg, 739a. 

p. Underwood, 46. 

p. Whyle, 1755. 
Evans, etc., Co. p. Holder, 278. 
Evansville r. City of Dennett, 1537, 

1540, 1543. 
Evansville Nat. Bank r. Kaufman, 189. 

p. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 1708d. 
Evansville Bank r. German-American 

Bank, 336. 

Everard P. Watson, 983. 
Everett p. Collins, 1623. 

p. Tidball, 663. 664. 

p. Cnited States, 392. 

p. Vendryes, 896, 898. 
Eversole r. Maull, 725a. 
Everaon r. Carpenter, 233. 

r. Gere. 1775a. 



References are to 
paragraphe marked S. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixi 



ETertson t?. Nat« Bank, 1489, 1490, 
1490a, 1494, 1496a, 1506. 

r. Nat. Bank of Newport, 1489, 
1500, 1505. 
Ewart c. Bank, 326o. 
Ewin p. Lancaster, 1334, 1337. 
Ewing 17. Clark, 155, 165, 1760. 

r. Butner, 824. 

r. Ewing, 24&. 
Exchange Bank v. Bank of North Am., 
1622a. 

V. Boyce, 1025. 

17. County of Lewis, 289, 422. 

17. Hubbard, 504, 867. 

V, Knox, 1681, 1689, 1691. 

r. Monteith, 284. 

V. Morrall, 1470, 1480. 

p. Sutton Bank, 1566, 1587. 

r. Tiddy, 1689. 

r. Tuttle, 62. 
Exchange Nat. Bank v. Bank of Little 
.Rock, 286. 

r. Johnson, 1230. 

r. Third Nat. Bank, 341, 413. 
Exeter Bank v. Sullivan, 374. 
Exon r. Russell, 1379. 
Ex parte First Nat. Bank, 360. 
Eyerman r. Piron, 728, 1215. 
Eyrich V. Capitol State Bank, 62, 3266. 

F. 

Fabens p. Mercantile Bank, 324, 341. 
Fahey t7. Esterley Machine Co., 203. 
Fair v, Cranston, 267. 
Fairbanks v. Sargent, 1487. 

r. Snow, 857. 
Eairchild v, Adams, 1187, 1188. 

r. Feltman, 497. 

r. Holly, 1263. 

V. Ogdensburgh, 424, 1088a. 
Fairclough v. Pavia, 726a. 
Fairex p. Bier, 1506. 
Fairfield p. Adams, 687, 1195. 
Fairlee p. Herring, 503, 504a, 511, 552, 

563. 
Fairley r. Roch, 1254. 
Fairly p. Nash, 292, 305. 
Fairthome p. Blaquire, 243. 
Faith V. Richmond, 361, 362. 
Fake P. Eddy, 919. 
Falconer p. Railroad Co., 1524. 
Fales p. Russell, 1478, 1480. 
Falk p. Moebs, 410, 415. 
Fall p. Glover, 174. 
Fall River Union Bank p. Willard, 454, 

462, 463, 654. 
Fallows P. Taylor, 196. 
Famous Shoe Co. p. Cross white, 1651, 

1652. 
Fancourt p. Thome, 51. 
Fanning p. Consequa, 879. 



Fanshawe p. Peet, 85. 

Fant P. Miller, 180, 860, 887, 914. 

p. Wickes, 812, 1181a. 
Farbell p. Sturtevant, 181, 182. 
Farber p. Nat. Forge &, Iron Co., 174, 

180, 187, 758. 
Fareira p. Gabell, 195. 
Far^ et al. p. Jennings, 1250. 
Farina p. Home, 1712. 
Paris p. Wells, 664. 
Farley Nat. Bank p. Henderson, 790, 

792. 
Farmeloe p. Bain, 1712. 
Farmer p. Manhattan Sav. Institution, 
1711a. 

p. Perry, 80. 

p. Rand, 1390. 

p. Sewall, 766. 
Farmers' Bank p. Allen, 963. 

p. Battle, 1014, 1023. 

p. Butier, 857, 1012, 1015, 1034. 

p. Colby, 403. 
. P. Duvall, 598, 658, 1039, 1057. 

p. Ewing, 150, 152, 1092, 1092a. 

p. Goddin, 1689, 1691. 

p. Gunnell, 970, 1021, 1060, 1070. 

p. Harris, 1032. 

p. Iglehart, 1708c, 1708«. 

p. Mutual Ass. Soc., 205. 

p. Oliver, 205. 

p. Reynolds, 1311, 1465, 1471, 
1479, 1696. 

p. Vail, 331. 

17. Vanmeter, 703, 1074, 1083, 
1113a. ' 

p. Wassen, 17086, 1708d. 

p. Whitehill, 1219. 
Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. P. New- 
land, 324, 335, 341, 342, 1245, 

1625. 
Farmers A Citizens' Nat. Bank p. 

Noxon, 791. 
Farmers' Exch. Bank p. Altura, etc., 

Co., 1092a, 1109, 1192&. 
Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co. p. Toledo, 

etc., R. Co., 1506b. 
Farmers & Mechanics' Bank p. Butch- 
ers, etc.. Bank, 390, 391, 
1552, 1610a. 

p. Harris, 1032. 

p. Humphreys, 854, 1190. 

p. Kercheval, 370. 

p. King, 1615. 

p. Needles, 93. 

p. Rathbone, 1335. 

P. White, 1669. 
Farmers & Mechanics' Nat. Bank p. 

Norrick, 1386. 
Farmers' Nat. Bank p. Dreyfus, 1590, 
1595, 1634. 

p. Fletcher, 834. 



Ixii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked {. 



I^armers' Nat. Bank t?. Rasmusson, 62. 

V. Salina Paper Mfg. Co., 1209. 

V. Sutton Mfg. Co., 10, 808, 800. 

V. Thomas, 142, 143, 1385, 1406. 
Farmers, etc.. Bank v. Hathaway, 
793a. 

V. Kercheval, 1788. 

V, Troy City Bank, 392, 417. 

V. Wackles, 1106. 
Farmers* Packing Co. v. Brown, 1713. 
Farmers' SSav. Bank v. Garrosch6, 392. 
Farmers & Tr. Bank v. Bank of Allen, 

1603, 1606a. 
Farmington State Bank v. Fall, 386a. 
Farnham v. Fox, 782. 
Farnsworth v. Allen, 602. 

V. Drake, 139. 

V. Muller, 637. 

f>. Sharp, 1418. 
Farnum v. Brooks, 211. 

V, Fowle, 1172. 
Farquhar v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 63. 

V, Southey, 546, 1398. 
Farr v. Nichols, 166. 

V. Bicker, 717. 

V, Stevens, 1260. 
Farra v, Adams, 1729. 
Farrar v. Bank, 34. 

f. Deflime, 369a. 

V. Oilman, 392. 
Farrell v. Lovett, 775. 

V. Reed, 271. 
Farrington v. Brown, 1149. 

17. Frankfort Bank, 831o, 1266a. 
Farthing v. Dark, 770, 789. 
Farwell v. Curtis, 1586, 1590, 1698. 

V. Ensign, 703. 

V, Heelis, 1281a. 

V, Hilliard, 1203. 

r. Kennett, 66. 

V, Tyler, 1197. 
Fassin v. Hubbard, 700a, 998. 
Fast V, Canton, etc., R. Co., 1750. 
Faulder v. Silk, 213. 
Faulkner f;. Bailey, 1216a. 

r. Faulkner, 268. 

V. Ware, 812. 

V. White & Son, 837, 843. 
Faurot i?. Yates, 1340. 
Favorite v, Stidham, 1387, 1388. 
Fawcett v. Freshwater, 1317a. 

V. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 6986. 

17. Powell, 815. 
Fay t?. Fay, 194. 

f. Noble, 382. 

V. Smith, 1373a, 1385. 
Fayette County Sav. Bank t\ Steffen, 

849, 850. 
Fayle v. Bird, 642. 
Fealy v. Bull. 796. 
Feamster v, Withrow, 1260, 1267. 



Fear v, Dimlap, 709, 713e. 
Fearing v, Clark, 68. 
Feam v. Filica, 809. 
Fearslake v, Morgan, 1269. 
Featherston v, Wilson, 82. 
Federal Bank v. Northwood, 365. 
Feiner v. Puetz, 290. 
Feldman v. McGraw, 205. 
Fell t\ Cook, 260. 

t?. Dial, 1147. 
Fellers v. Penrod, 174, 177. 
Fellows V. Kress, 1229. 

V, Prentiss, 1319, 1329. 

V. Steamer, 1733. 

V, Wyman, 370a. 
FelFs Point Sav. Inst. t*. Weedon, 1703, 

1707, 1707a. 
Felton f?. Smith, 1181a, 12816. 
Fenan v. Babcock, 305. 
Fenby v, Pritchard, 827. 
Fenn t*. Duffdale, 1238. 

V. Harrison, 278, 279, 638, 687, 
689a, 736, 1268. 
Fenno v. Gay, 89. 
Fenouille v. Hamilton, 829a. 
Fenton v. Robinson, 848, 850. 

t\ White, 225. 
Fentum t\ Pocock, 1319, 1334, 1336o. 
Fenwick r. Bow^ling, 202. 
Fera i?. Wickham, 1425. 
Ferdon v. Jones, 824. 
Ferguson v. Coppeau. 1733. 

t\ Harris, 182, 248, 1267. 

r. Landram, 1545. 

t\ Oliver, 203. 

V. Planet. 835. 

V. Turner, 1311. 
Femald v. Bush, 1590. 
Fernan v. Doubleday, 1317. 
Fernandez v. Lewis. 466, 470. 
Femekes v. Bergen thai, 196, 204. 
Femer v. Williams, 644. 
Ferrel v. N. Y. Sec. & Tr. Co., 1221. 
Ferris i'. Bond, 91. 

V. Saxton, 614. 

V, Shaw, 361 o. 

V. Tavel, 797, 827. 
Fesenmaver v, Adcock, 36. 
Fessenden v. Summers, 71 3^, 714. 
Fetters v. Muncie Nat. Bank, 790, 

793a. 
Feuert t\ Brown, 369. 
Field V, Anderson, 1471. 

V. Lelean, 1279a. 

V. Mayor of New York, 23. 

t7. Nickerson, 607, 609, 611, 612, 
1211. 

t?. Schieffelin, 271. 

v. Tibbetts. 787. 
Fielden f?. Lahens, 753. 
Fielder v. Marshall, .485. 



References are to 
paragrapha marked |. 



TABLE OF GASES. 



Ixiii 



Fielding & Co. u. Corry, 331. 
Fields r. Tunston, 724a, 725. 
Fifield r. Close, 122. 
Fifth Nat. Bank r. Armstrong, 698(2. 

r. Ashworth, 334, 1625. 

V. Central Nat. Bank, 139. 

r. F. S. S. & G. S. F. R. Co., 388, 
390. 

V. Providence Warehouse Co., 1714. 

r. Woolsev, 833, 1343, 1772. 
Filby V. Turner, 1481. 
Finch r. Galigher, 1295. 

r. Skelton, 183, 606, 1215. 
Findlay r. Pott, 62. 
Findley r. Hill, 319. 
Fine v. Highbridge Church, 1197. 
Finger v. McCaughey, 1458. 
Fink r. Chambers, 163. 

r. Fox, 179. 
Finkn^ v. Reynous, 200. 
Finlay v. Hall, 1458a. 
Finley v. Green, 707, 719, 729. 
Finney r. Bennett, 1691, 1692. 

c. Callendar, 69, 70. 

V. Shirley, 39. 
Fiore v. Ladd & Tilton, 141. 
First Municipality v. Orleans Theater 

Co., 1567, 1562. 
First Nat. Bank r. Anderson, 769a, 
775, 812. 

r. Am. Exch. Nat. Bank, 139, 
769a. 

r. Andrews, 834. 

r. Babcock, 62, 713c. 

V. Bank of Monroe, 336, 698d. 

17. Bensley, 508. 

9. Bentley, 827. 

r. Bevin, 802. 

V, Bradley, 1789. 

r. Brijirgs, 959. 

17. Bullard. 1296. 

V. Buckhannon, 1592, 1625. 

V. Bynum, 62. 

r. Carson, 60, 1385, 1398. 

r. Canatsey, 62a. 

T, Carpenter, 369. 

V. Case, 1266a. 

V. Cecil, 94, 1312, 1318. 

V. Chaffin, 1220. 

r. Chilsom, 1235. 

r. City Bank, 328a, 341. 

r. aark, 496, 551a, 560, 1704. 

9. Coates, 16a, 20, 1643. 

r. Collins, 262. 

17. Cook, Treas., 420. 

r. Council Bluffs W. Wks. Co., 
394. 

€. County Comrs., 1505, 1506. 

r. Crabtree, 1734a. 

r. Cray, 341. 

r. Crittenden, 656. 



First Nat. Bank v, Dawson, 590. 
r. Day, 1291. 
V, Deal, 851. 

e. Dubuque St. Ry. Co., 16a, 64. 
V. Ege, 1734, 1737. 
V. Emmett, 812. 
e, Falkenham, 664. 
V. Farmers Sl Mechanics' Bank, 

669a, 672, 837. 
17. First Nat. Bank, 639a, 672, 

698, 1359, 1612, 1655. 
17. Fourth Nat. Bank, 329, 345, 

1590. 
17. Fowler, 94, 832a. 
V. Freeman, 358a. 
17. Gaines, 206. 
r. Gay, 62, 282, 299, 316. 
r. German Bank, 341, 343. 
17. Graham, 286a. 
17. Grant, 726, 786. 
V, Greenville Nat. Bank, 28, 

1611a. 
17. Gregg, 196a. 
17. Halir326a, 417, 1406. 
r. Harris, -1228, 1312, 1571, 1634. 
17. Hartman, 1095, 1140. 
17. Hatch, 462, 960, 972, 983. 
17. Hogan, 396. 
17. Hunt, 5, 88. 
17. Johns, 812, 850, 875. 
17. Johnson, 143, 827. 
17. Keith, 1638, 1643. 
17. Kelly, 1731, 1731a, 1734c. 
17. Kingsley, 70. 
17. Larsen, 62. 
17. Latton, 850, 852. 
17. Laughlin, 1395, 1410O. 
r. Leach, 1603, 1604. 
17. Leath, 1603. 
17. Leavitt, 1317. 
9. Lierman, 849. 
17. Lockstich Fence Co., 713a. 
17. Loyhed, 299, 802, 1200. 
17. Marlow, 62. 
17. Maxfield, 1236. 
17. McAllister, 627. 
17. McAndrews, 1731. 
17. Miller, 1590, 1594. 
17. Missouri Coal Co., 387. 
17. Morgan, 368, 1266a. 
17. Morris, 868. 

17. Mount Tabor, 1500, 1509&. 
17. Needham, 1633. 
17. Newton, 1266. 
17. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 1364, 

1365. 
17. Nugent, 81a. 
17. Ocean Nat. Bank, 286a. 
17. O'Connell, 1278a. 
V. Owen, 600. 



Ixiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Referenoes are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



First Nat. Bank t\ Parsons, 319. 

f?. Payne, 130, 707a, 713a. 

V, Peace, 1618, 1655. 

17. Peck, 1372a, 14096. 

V, Pennington, 769a. 

V. Plankinton, 207. 

f>. Price, 617. 

V. Ragsdale, 1354. 

V. Reno County Bank, 328, 344, 
698, 698a, 698d. 

V, Ricker, 1655, 1657. 

17. Ryerson, 972, 990, 1106. 

17. Sandford, 326. 

17. Security Nat. Bank, 725, 796, 
1702 1702a, 1737. 

». Shaw, 1734. 

17. Shreiner, 1140. 

V, Sillard, 1311. 

17. Silvers, 62. 

17. Skeen, 43. 

17. Slaughter, 62. 

17. Smith et al., 803. 

17. Sprague, 324, 341, 342, 1734a. 

17. Stanley, 795&, 803, 808, 8156, 
849, 850. 

17. State Bank, 1369, 1661. 

17. Strauss, 831a. 

17. Turner, 207, 1252. 

17. Wallis, 403. 

17. Watkins, 816. 

17. Weidenbeck, 1398. 

17. Weston, 365, 775, 1150. 

17. Werst, 832a. 

17. Whitman, 1636, 1636a. 

17. Wilder, 1478, 1480. 

17. Willis, 403. 

17. Wood, 181, 725, 833, 1032, 
1050. 

17. Zeims, 845, 846. 
First Nat. Bank of Angelica v. Hale, 

1188. 
First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. 

First Nat. Bank of Newport, 324, 

327, 328, 329, 388. 
First Nat. Bank of Black River Falls 

17. Jones, 1312. 
First Nat. Bank of Carlisle 17. Graham, 

286. 
First Nat. Bank of Central City 17. 

Hummel, 1612a. 
First Nat. Bank of Chattanooga 17. 

Behan, 1226. 
First Nat. Bank of Chicago 17. Dean, 

1713. 
First Nat. Bank of Crawfordville i?. 

First Nat. Bank of Lafayette, 

1362, 1372. 
First Nat. Bank of Creede 17. Miner 

€t al., 1266c. 
First Nat. Bank of Dalton 17. Black, 

177, 179. 



First Nat. Bank of Dubuque r. Mc- 

Kibben, 812. 
First Nat. Bank of Elkhart r. Arm- 
strong, 336. 

17. Osborne, 443a. 
First Nat. Bank of Fort Scott 17. El- 
liott, 812. 
First Nat. Bank of Frankfort v. 

Bremer, 1363. 
First Nat. Bank of Gadsden 17. SprouU, 
800, 810, 812. 

17. Winchester, 377. 
First Nat. Bank of Grafton v. Bab- 

bidse, 284, 790. 
First Nat. Bank of Hutchinson 17. 

Mclnturff, 1252. 
First Nat. Bank of Indianapolis 17. 

New, 278, 1221. 
First Nat. Bank of Marshalltown r. 

Manhattan State Bank, 1655a. 
First Nat. Bank of Meadsville 17. 

Fourth Nat. Bank, 330. 
First Nat. Bank of Montgomery r. 

Armstrong, 336. 
First Nat. Bank of New York 17. Mor- 

riss, 868, 924. 
First Nat. Bank of Omaha r. First 

Nat. Bank, 333, 334. 
First Nat. Bank of Springfield 17. 

Haulenbeck, 758, 791. 
First Nat. Bank of Stanford 17. Mat- 

tingly, 1309. 
First Nat. Bank of Starksville 17. 

Meyer & Co., 1731, 1734a, 1734c. 
First Nat. Bank of Syracuse 17. N. Y. 

C. A H. R. R. Co., 1731. 
First Nat. Bank of Uniontown 17. 

Clark, 1636. 
First Nat. Bank of Wellston 17. Arm- 
strong, 336. 
Firth 17. Thrush, 992, 1120. 
Fish 17. First Nat. Bank, 673. 

r. Jackman, 1034. 
Fisher v. Beckwith, 462. 

17. Bradford, 63, 1201. 

17. Briscoe, 156, 833. 

17. Carroll, 1480. 

17. Denver Nat. Bank, 1332a. 

17. Ellis, 101. 

17. Evans, 640, 1017, 1030. 

17. Fisher, 164, 204, 832a. 

17. Krutz, 222. 

17. Leland, 782, 789, 1220. 

17. Leslie, 36. 

17. Marvin, 1266a. 

17. Mershon, 1482. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1772. 

17. Otes, 748, 834. 

V. Pomfret, 99. 

17. Price, 1095a. 

17. Rieman, 731a. 



References are to 
pom^ropA* marked §. 



TABLE OF OASES. 



hnr 



Fisher v. ShAttuck» 858. 

F. Simons, 815. 

V. titev&is, 157. 

V. Stockbrand, 1310. 

V. Von Behren, b49o, 850, 852. 
Fisherdick v. Button, 1416. 
Fisk V. Brackett, 883. 

p. City of Kenosha, 1550. 

p. First Nat. Bank, 551. 

r. McNeal, 86. 

«. MiUer, 714, 960. 

17. Beser, 717. 
Fiake v. Eldridge, 403, 405. 

V, Pratt, 970. 

c. Williams, 156. 
Fiteh 17. City Nat. Bank, 995, 1095. 

V. Jones, 85, 153, 808, 815. 

V. Hammer, 1310, 1311, 1343. 

17. Lawton, 403. 

17. McDonell, 790, 1221, 1260. 

17. Remer, 894. 

r. Satton, 1289. 
Fitchburg Bank t7. Greenwood, 700. 

F. Perley, 1045. 
Fitchburg Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Davis, 983. 
Fitler v. Morris, 1115. 
Fitigerald v. Noland, 1338. 

V. Barker, 693, 831c. 

17. Reid, 212. 

17. Williams, 1084. 
Fitzharris r. Leggett, 64a. 
Fitzhugh 9. Wiloox, 213. 
Fitzmaurioe v. Mosier, 1233a. 
Fitzpatrick r. Heame, 172. 
Flack V. Green, 1054. 
Flagg V, Palmyra, 1551. 

r. School District, 54a, 814, 1537. 
Flanagan r. Meyer, 69. 
Flannagan r. Brown, 1290. 

r. Hamilton, 1266. 

V. Phelps, 1373a. , 

Flannery v. Coates, 333. 
Flats 17. Marshall, 496. 

17. Mulhall, 891a. 
Flaum r. Wallace, 174. 
Fleckner v. Bank of TJ. S.^ 52, 388, 

392, 687. 
Fleetwood 17. Brown, 203. 
Fleming 17. Burge, 36. 

V. Fulton, 979. 

r. Gilbert, 169. 

r. JLeiper, 1389. 
Flemming p. McOain, 1646, 1648. 

r. Mulligan, 751. 

V. Kail, 56. 
Flentham v. Steward, 1326, 1769, 

1769a. , 

Fletcher t. Arkansas Nat. Bank, 959. 

V. Blodgett, 150, 154. 

17. Bniddyll, 1052. 

Vol. I — V 



Fletcher 17. Cushee, 814. 

17. Dana, 683. 

17. Dysart, 319. 

17. Dyte, 94. 

e. Froggart. 1168. 

17. Heath, 1335os 

17. Jackson, 1340. 

17. Manninff, 1647. 

17. Schaumburg, 686. 

17. Thompson, 69, 60. 
Fleig V, Sleet, 1623. 
Flight t\ McLean, 130. 

17. Read, 182. 
Flint e. Craig, 1395. 

17. Flint, 74, 668, 688a, 724a, 725. 

17. Phipps, 164. 

17. Rogers, 600, 1209. 
Florence Mining Co. v. Brown, 1636, 

1636a, 1643. 
Florence R. Co. k Imp. Co. v. Chase 

Nat. Bank, 386, 391, 856. 
Flour City Nat. Bank v. Garfield, 19, 
1734a. 

17. Grover, 812, 815- 

17. McKay, 1332a. 

17. Trader j' Nat. Bank, 769a, 1601a. 
Floumoy v. First Nat. Bank, 174. 
Flower v. Noble, 769a. 

V. Sadler, 174. 
Flowers v. Billing, 74. 
Floyd Acceptances, 273, 436, 437, 440, 

809, 1544^ 
Foard 17. Johnson, 1030. 

17. Womack, 1074. 
Foden v. Sharp, 643. 
Foerdeser 17. Morris, 1756. 
Foerster, Succession of, 544, 549, 1205, 

1229. 
Fogarties 17. State Bank, 1637. 
Fogarty v. Wilson, 1222. 
Fogg 17. Sawyer, 736, 1676a, 1678. 

V, School Dist., 43, 45a, 769a, 775, 
1233. 

17. Virgin, 405. 
Foland 17. Boyd, 1086, 1087. 
Foley 17. Emerald Brewing Co., 600, 

707, 1093. 
Foley k Wadsworth Implement Co. 17. 

Simpson et aL, 1407. 
Folcott V. Ogden, 883. 
Folger 17. Chase, 417, 656, 657, 687, 

690, 1398. 
Follain v, Dupre, 1028. 
Foilett 17. Steele, 1267. 
Follmer v. Frommell, 366, 369. 
Foltz V. Mey, 760. 

r. Pouree, 683. 
Fonner v. Smith, 1635, 1639. 
Fontaine r. Gunter, 1418. 
Foot V. Sabin, 365, 366. 
Foote 17. Valentine, 164. 



Ixvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Forbes v. Boston & L. R. Co., 1731. 

V, Cochrane, 866. 

V. Espy, 136. 

V. Marshall, 361. 

17. Omaha Nat. Bank, 1014. 

V. Rowe, 1769. 

V. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 
1260. 
Ford V, Angelrodt, 608. 

V. Beecker, 1291/ 

<7. Buckeye Ins. Co., 867. 

V. Dallam, 1149. 

V. Ford, 1373a. 

17. Henderson, 713o. 

V. McClung, 1587. 

17. Mitchell, 66, 927, 1702, 1706. 

V. Phillips, 232, 724a. 

17. Thornton, 326c, 334a, 1427. 
Fordyce 17. Kosminski, 1406, 1407a. 

17. Nelson, 668. 
Fores 17. Johnes, 196. 
Forman r. Wright, 177, 201. 
Forshay 17. Ferguson, 857. 
Forsyth i;. Bonta, 1362a. 

17. Kimball, 70. 
Fortune 17. Stockton, 1231. 
Fort Payne Coal & Iron Co. i7. Web- 
ster, 203. 
Forward 17. Thompson, 96. 
Fobs 17. Hildreth, 858. 

r. Nutting, 883. 
Foster v. Andrews, 369, 367, 369. 

17. Callaway Co., 1667. 

17. Clements, 326a. 

f?. Clifford, 80, 617. 

f?. Cochran, 274. 

r. Collner, 672. 

V, Dawber, 642. 

V. Essex Bank, 286a, 1706e. 

r. Fuller, 266, 271. 

17. Hoyt, 1431. 

17. Jolly, 80, 199a, 720. 

17. Julien, 1145. 

17. .Turdison, 1096. 

17. Mackay, 1471. 

r. Mackreth, 86. 

17. McDonald, 1003, 1006a. 

17. McKinnon, 860. 

17. Mills, 196. 

17. Parker, 1083, 1170. 

17. Faulk, 1686, 1696. 

17. Potter, 1708a. 

17. Reduction Mining Co., 394. 

17. Shattuck, 139. 

17. Smeath, 1016. 

17. Trustees, 1281. 

V. Wise, 183. 
Foster, Rec. r. Rincker, 326, 336, 340e, 

1246, 1625. 
Foulay t\ Hall, 1468a. 
Foulke r. Fleming, 891. 



Fountain 17. Anderson, 271. 

t7. Bookstaver, 274, 690, 
Fourth Nat. Bank i7. Cotton Comp. Co 
1714. 

r. Henschuh, 692, 999. 

V, Mahon, 673. 

17. Mayer, 340&. 
Fourth St. Bank v. Yardley, 1636, 

1636a, 1643. 
Fowler 17. Allen, 68. 

17. Atkinson, 403, 443a. 

17. Brantly, 622, 623, 788. 

17. Brooks, 1326. 

17. City of Superior, 1622a, 1624. 

V, Clearwater, 1763. 

17. Gates City Bank, 497, 632. 

17. Hendon. 1052. 

17. Ludwig, 1267. 

17. Palmer, 727. 

17. Strickland, 1342. 
Fox 17. Bank, 775, 7796, 787a. 

V. Cipra, 688o. 

17. Clifton, 366. 

17. Drake, 443a. 

17. Foster, 748. 

17. Hartford R. Co., 726. 

17. H. & W. H. H. R. Co., 1605, 
1606a, 1512, 1613. 

17. Rural Home Co., 386. 

17. Whitney, 1217. 
Fraker 17. Cullum, 1369, 1402. 

17. Little, 1369. 
Fralick 17. Norton, 60. 
Francis r. Evans, 340e. 

17. Joseph, 831c. 

17. Rucker, 1438, 1449. 
Frank v. Blake, 816. 

17. Irgens, 161, 163. 

r. Kuigler, 668. 

r. Lanier, 1369. 

17. Lilienfield, 142, 143, 146, 248, 
249, 707, 712, 775, 843. 

17. Longstreet, 674. 

17. Quast, 792. 

17. Wessells, 47, 67, 1703. 

V, Williams, 1321. 
Frankland v. Johnson, 273, 306, 307, 

403, 408. 
Franklin 17. Baker, Exr., 1417. 

V. Lynch, 660, 662. 

17. March, 38. 

V. Twogood, 748a. 

r. Vanderpool, 1586, 1596. 
Franklin Bank i\ Freeman, 1583, 1584. 

17. Lynch, 496, 551a. 
Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Courtney, 

1386. 
Franklin, Nat. Bank t7. Newcombe, 833. 

V, Whitehead, 377, 1713a. 
Franklin Sav. Bank i7. Heusman, 769. 

V. Reed, 160. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked S. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixvii 



Franklin Sav. Inst. v. Heinsman, 775. 
Fraser v. Bank, 369a. 

r. Charleston, 1708y. 
Frasier r. Massey, 682. 
Frazer's Admr. 9. Frazer, 728. 
Frazier r. Gas Bank, 341. 

r. Jordan, 1324. 

r. Troy Printing Co., 85. 

V. Warfield, 881, 806. 
Frayzer r. Dameron, 1177. 
Freakley v. Fox, 1285. 
Freeh r. Yawger, 185. 
Fredd v. Eaves, 681. 
Frederick r. Clemins, 860. 

V. Cotton, 105. 

V, Winans, 666. 
Frederick Institute v. Michael, 247, 

739a, 1311. 
Free v. Hawkins, 80, 719, 719a. 
Freeman r. Barley, 271, 725a. 

r. Bovnton, 454, 460, 653, 1123, 
'1148, 1228, 1478, 1480. 

V. Britton, 750, 762o, 763, 767, 
1217. 

e, £lli«on, 63. 

V. O'Brien, 1103, 1104, 1149. 

V, Ross, 88. 
Freeman's Bank r. Perkins, 991. 

r. Rollins, 1326. 

r. Ruckman, 90, 648, 667, 748, 
879. 
Freeman's Nat. Bank v. Nat. Tube 
Works, 698<f. 

V. Savery, 775. 
Freeport Bank v. Hagemeyer, 750, 

751. 
Freese r. Brownell, 90, 868, 879, 896, 

898. 
Fieiberg r. Moffett, 1289. 
French r. Andratte, 1428. 

r. Bank of Columbia, 189, 1074, 
1076, 1078, 1083, 1086, 1170. 

17. Gordon, 128. 

V, JarFis, 1238, 1241. 

V, Price, 1300. 

V. Stewart, 1786. 

V, Talbot Pav. Co., 196. 

V, Turner, 689a, 690, 748a. 

V. WiUiams, 1312. 
Freund v. Importers & Traders* Nat. 
Bank, 1618. 

r. Importers, etc., Bank, 1603, 
1607a. 
Frevert i?. Henry, 1340. 
Frey V. Kirk, 875. 

r. Thompson, 698d. 
Frick V. Moore, 195, 196. 
Friedlander r. Tex. Pac. R. Co., 1733. 
Friedman, Keller & Co. v, Peters, 

1713a. 
Friend v, Duryee* 358a, 764a. 



Friend i;. Harrison, 195. 

V. Miller, 196, 196a. 

V, Smith, 1769. 

17. Wilkinson, 992, 1021, 1043, 
1051, 1053. 
Frierson 17. Galbraith, 896. 

17. Williams, 894a. 
Frisbie v. Larned, 1260. 
Fritch 17. McDowell, 741, 742. 
Frith 17. Thrush, 1047. 
Fritsch r. Heesless, 69. 
Froelich r. Trading Co., 271. 
Frois 17. Mayfield, 1329. 
Frontier Bank r. Moss, 1676, 1676a. 
Frost 17. Tracy, 1340. 

17. Weatherbee, 1771. 

17. Wood, 292. 
Froude r. Rishop, 1312, 1317. 
Fry 17. Dudley, 56, 67. 

17. Evans, 268, 1432. 

f. Hill, 466, 467, 471. 

17. Patterson, 12B0. 

17. Rosseau, 56. 
Frye 17. Tucker, 384. 
Fuke r. Smith, 732. 
Fulford 17. Johnson, 1269. 
Fuller v. Green, 1392. 

17. Hooper, 410, 1086. 

17. Hutchings, 815, 1652. 

17. Kemp, 1289. 

t\ Lambert, 179. 

9. McDonald, 719, 1091, 1093. 

f. Scott, 713<7, 1788. 

17. Smith, 731a. 
Fullerton r. Bank of U. S., 656, 1039. 

r. Hill, 709, 713o, 714. 

r. Sturgiss, 142, 843. 
Fu:ton V, Louffhlin, 185, 356. 

r. McCracken, 949, 900. 
Fulton Bank r. N. Y. i Sharon Canal 
Co., 1616. 

r. Phoenix Bank, 1671. 
Fulton County 17. Wabash &, Miss. R. 

Co., 1535. 
Fulton Nat. Bank r. €k)8tine, 340c. 
Fultz 17. Walters, 1703. 
Furgerson 17. Staples, 672. 
Furman v. Nichol, 447. 
Furman Farm Imp. Co. 17. Long, 197. 
Funk V, Babbitt, 128, 129. 
Fumiss 17. Gilchrist, 385. 
Furz 17. Nicholls, 69. 
Furze r. Sharwood, 983, 985. 
FydeU 17. Clark, 739, 1264. 

G. 

Gaar 17. Louisville Banking Co., 62. 
Gable 17. Gall, 1282. 
Gadbury, In re, 255. 
Gadden v. Savings Bank, 333. 
GafTney 17. Bradford, 800a. 



Ixviii 



TABLE OF GASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Gafford I7. Ball, 812. 

V. Mortgage Co., 394. 
Gage V, Anesilly, 83, 769a. 

V. Jaqueth, 1732. 

r. Kendall, 1192&. 

V, McDermid, 833. 

V, Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 1784. 

V, Morse, 1738. 

t>. Sharp, 776, 864. 
Gage Hotel Co. r. Union Nat. Bank, 

1590, 1638, 1643. 
Gahn v. Niemcewiez, 1317. 
Gaines r. Dorsett, 48, 49. 
Gkiither v. Farmers, etc.. Bank, 760, 

762a. 
Galbraith v. Fullerton, 1316. 

r. McLaughlin, 816. 
Galceron v. Noble, 720o. 
Gale V, Chase Nat. Bank, 392, 1607. 
Gale V. Corey, 1513. 

V. Kemper, 656. 

t?. Miller, 366, 369, 370, 371,371a, 
656. 

r. Walsh, 926, 930, 971. 
Galen v. Niemcewiez, 1329. 
Galladay t?. Bank of Union, 963. 
Gallagher v. Nichols, 16a (5). 

V, Roberts, 668, 1262, 1277. 
Gallery v. Prindle, 513. 
Galiiher v, Galliher, 1435a. 
Galloway v. Glisson, 271, 795a. 
Galveston R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 1543. 
Galvin v. Syfers, 68, 856. 
Galway r. Mathews, 94, 358a, 360. 
Gamble v. Hatton, 56. 

V, Wilson, 834. 
Gambull t?. Brown Hotel Co., 296, 505. 
Ganmion v, Everett, 646. 

V, Kentner, 1221. 

V, SchmoU, 508. 
Gammon Theological Seminary v, Rob- 
bins, 24, 63, 63a, 180. 
Gano i;. Fisk, 24. 

V. Heath, 1335, 1390. 

17. McCarthy, 741. 
Gannon t;. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 

800a. 
Gansevoort r. Williams, 367. 
Gan2 V, Weisenberger, 815&. 
Garden r. Bruce, 1650. 
Garden Grove Bank t7. Railroad Co., 

1731, 17336. 
Gardner, Admr. p. First Nat. Bank of 

Billings, 3266. 
Gardner r. Bank of Tennessee, 964. 

V. Barger, 44. 

V, Connecticut, 1300. 

17. Gardner, 25. 

17. Gorham, 1267, 1273. 

V, Howland, 1731. 

17. Matthews, 80. 



Gardner p. Maxey, 196, 200. 

V. Maynard, 1238, 1239, 1240. 

17. Nat. City Bank, 21. 

t7. Walsh, 163. 1287, 1389. 

17. Watson, 1319. 
Garforth v. Bradley, 264. 
Garland v. Jacoms, 358a. 

V. Pamplin, 249. 
Garlock r. Geortner, 1468a, 1483. 
Garner t7. Fite, 68. 

17. Hall, 43. 
Gamett v. Woodcock, 600, 603, 1038* 
Garr r. Louisville B. Co., 53, 62, 693. 
Garrard v, Haddan, 1405, 1406, 1407,. 
1408, 1409. 

V. Lewis, 86, 842a, 844, 1405. 
Gurrett 17. Ferguson, 1338. 

r. Findlater, 573. 

17. Williams, 748. 
Garrettson 17. Garrettson Bank, 54» 
496, 651, 867, 896, 1567, 
1603. 

17. North Atchison Bank, 496,. 
551a, 1603, 1799. 

17. Purdy, 62. 
Garrigus, Admr. p. Home Frontier & 

Foreign Missionary Soc., 46, 65,. 

188a. 
Garrison 17. O'Donald, 283, 289. 
Garton 17. Union City Bank, 1188. 
Garver i?. Pontius, 62. 
Garvier v, Downie, 1114. 
Garvin i7. Lenton, 207. 

17. Wiswell, 104, 663a. 
Gascoyne 17. Smith, 608. 
Gaskin 17. Wells, 1260. 
Gass 17. Simpson, 24. 
Gaters 17. Madeley, 264, 256. 
Gates r. Beecher, 456, 594, 635. 

17. Erie, 500. 

17. McKee, 1773. 
Gatschell A Co. 17. Foster, 800a. 
Gatzmer 17. Pierce, 183. 
Gaul 17. Willis, 762, 757, 762a, 767,. 

862, 1217. 
Gaunt 17. Duffy, 1423. 

V. Taylor, 1615. 
Gawtry 17. Doane, 584, 1057, 1115, 1149. 
Gay 17. Kingsley, 241, 686. 

17. Lander, 130. 

17. Rainey, 868. 

17. Rooke, 36. 

17. Ward, 1770, 1789. 
Gaylard i7. Nat. Sav., etc.. Bank, 664a,. 

741. 
Gaylord 17. Van Loan, 88. 
Gaytes 17. Hubbard, 47. 
Gazoway 17. Moore, 81. 
Gazzam 17. Armstrong, 523, 524, 625,. 

526, 531. 
Geary v. Physic, 74, 688a. 



References are to 
paragrapke marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Itit 



Gee V. Saunders, 769a. 

Geer r. Bd. of Commissionen, 1537. 

Geib V. Reynolds, 1260. 

Geier r. Shade, 106. 

Geifuss r. Corrigan, 1714. 

Geiger r. Clark, 713c, 996. 

Oeill r. Jeremy, 1044. 

G^peke v. City of Dubuque, 10, 389, 

391, 1497, L500, 1513, 1514, 1522, 

1524, 1525, 1627, 1637. 
Genunel r. Henben, 725a, 1435a. 
Geneser i;. Weissner, 670; 719. 
Genoa v. Woodruff, 1514. 
George r. 8urry, 74, 688a. 
Georgia Kat. Bank v, Henderson, 327, 

1568, 1572, 1574. 
Geralopulo v. Wieler, 939, 940, 941, 

1258. 
Gerard v. McCormick, 282, 283. 
Gerard Bank v. Bank of Penn Town- 
ship, 1603. 
Gerhardt r. Boatman's Sav. Inst., 343. 
Ger. Security Bank v. Jefferson, 1708c. 
German v. Ritchie, 933. 
German-American Bank v, Carondelet 
Real Estate Co., 279. 

r. City of Brenham, 1506. 

V. Farmers, etc., Bank, 1622a. 

V, Niagara Cycle Co., 1311, 1312. 

r. Scribner Lumber Co., 843. 
German Bank v. De Shon, 130, 197. 

r. Edwards, 1734a. 
German Fire Ins. Co. Bank v. Kimball, 

333. 
German Nat. Bank v. Butchers' Hide 
k Tallow Co., 386a. 

r. Bums, 1599. 

r. Coors, 336. 

V. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 1622a. 
German SaT. Bank r. National Bank, 

1654a. 
German Sav. Bank of Balto. City v. 

Benshaw, 1708, 1709. 
German Sav. Inst. r. Adac, 1638, 1643. 

r. Franklin, 1544. 
Germania Bank r. Distler, 83. 
Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis 

R. Co., 1740o. 
Germania Nat. Bank v, Taaks, 551. 
Germania Sar. Bank v. Town of Dar- 
lington, 1524. 
Gerow v. Riffe, 60. 
Gerth v. Engler, 80. 
Gerwig r. Sitterly, 1274. 
Gettler r. Pickett, 850. 
Getto V, Pinkert, 80. 
Getty V, Binsse, 1298. 

r. Schantz, 1753, 1769. 
Gibb r. Mather, 519, 642. 
Gibbon r. Coggen, 1158. 

p. Scott, 79, 169. 



Gibbons t?. Railroad Co., 1523. 
Gibbe v. Bryant, 1296. 

V. Howard, 890. 

V, Linabury, 861. 

r. Tremont, 898, 918, 920, 921, 
1451. 
Giberson v. Jolley, 819. 
Gibert r. W. C. V. M., etc., R. Co., 

1293, 1491a, 1513. 
Gibson r. Carruthers, 1730. 

r. Cooke, 16a, 17, 21, 22, 451,462, 
743. 

V. Finley, 22. 

17. Hawkins, 60, 150. 

17. Hunter, 136, 137. 

17. Lenhart, 160. 

17. Miller, 706, 781a, 812. 

v. Minet, 17, 102. 

17. Nat. Park Bank of N. Y., 802. 

17. Parlin, 1304. 

17. Powell, 688. 

r. Rains, 427. 

r. Smith, 608. 

17. Tobey, 1262, 1264. 
Giddings 17. Coleman, 1644. 

17. Giddings, 68, 182. 
Giffert v. West, 731, 733a, 734. 
Gift V. Hall, 149, 150. 
Gifford, Ew parte, 1322. 

17. Harden, 1686, 1587, 1696. 
Gilbert r. Adams, 1343. 

V. Dennis, 664, 666, 972, 974, 979, 
983, 1473. 

17. Guignor, 17346. 

17. Iron Mfg. Co., 1708&. 

17. Man. Co., 1708e. 

17. Nantucket Bank, 663a. 

r. Vachon, 70! 

17. Walker, 333, 1468a. 
Gilbough 17. Norfolk, 1606a. 
Gilchrist 17. Donnell, 1003, 1031, 1116, 

1117. 
Giles 17. Bourne, 66, 83. 

17. Canary, 1296. 

17. Mauldin, 34. 

17. Perkins, 333. 
Gill 17. Cubitt, 772, 1603. 

r. Gen. Iron Screw Collier Co., 
174L 

17. Morris, 206, 1306. 

17. Palmer, 978. 
Gillaspie 17. Kelley, 90, 144. 
Gillden, etc., Co. r. National Bank, 

289. 
Gillespie r. Campbell, 703a. 

17. Neville, 979. 

17. Wheeler, 713c. 
Gillet c. Bank of America, 832a. 

17. Taylor, 1312, 1335, 1338. 
Gillett 17. Averill, 656, 657. 

17. Smith, 1411. 



]xx 



TABLE OF OXSES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Gillett V. Sweat, 1387. 
Oilliam r. Davis, 1311, 1328. 
Gilliatt V. Lynch, 1429. 
Gillingham v. Boardman, 1759, 1764. 
Oillispie t;. Hannahan, 654, 1144, 1145, 
1146. 

V, Wheeler, 713c. 
Oilly V. Springer, 643. 
Oilman r. Douglass Co., 1249. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 926. 
. V, New O. R. Co., 790, 795, 1603. 

17. Peck, 1676, 1676a. 
Gilmore r. Bussey, 1260. 

V, Hurst, 61, 79. 
Gilpike v. Quintrell, 1756. 
Gilpin r. Marley, 713a. 
Gilson V. Miller, 781a. 
Gilstrah v, St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 424. 
Gilstrap v. Smith, 1310. 
Gimmi v. Cullen, 752, 767, 762a. 
Gindrat«r. Mechanics' Bank, 992, 1007, 

1013. 
Gingnon t?. Union Tr. Co., 918, 921. 
Ginn v. Weissenberg, 1563. 
Giselman r. Starr, 67, 1181a. 
Gist V. Fertz, 1306a, 1324, 1332a. 

V. Ganfl, 1412. 

V. Lybrand, 1012, 1015, 1145. 
Givens v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 703, 

1147, 1155. 
Glaser t\ Rounds, 637, 1125, 1145. 
Glasgow V. Copeland, 454. 

V. Pratte, 972, 990. 

17. Sands, 257. 
Glass V. Murphy, 204. 

V. Taylor, 880. 
Glasscock v. Glasscock, 162. 

17. Rand, 175. 

17. Smith, 371a. 
Glatt 17. Forttmann, 326. 
Glaze V. Ferguson, 1103, 1106. 
Glazebrook t7. Ragland, 1429, 1431. 
Gleason 17. Henry, 13625. 

17. Wright, 748. 
Glen Cove Mutual Ins. Co. 17. Harrold, 

1767, 1779. 
Glen V, Porter, 76. 
Glendinning, Ex parte, 1322. 
Glenn v. Burroughs, 1262. 

17. Farmers' Bank, 197. 

17. Smith, 1260, 1267, 1268. 

17. Hill, 68. 
Glickauf 17. Kaufman, 713c. 
Glick 17. Crist, 1215a. 
Glicksman 17. Early, 974, 976, 1021. 
Glidden 17. Chamberline, 676, 899, 1148, 
1160, 1163. 

17. Henry, 41. 
Glossup V. Jacob, 494, 495. 
Gloucester Bank v. Salem Bank, 1361, 

1371, 1657, 1669, 1675, 1688. 



I Gloucester Bank t?. Worcester, 1310, 

132L 
Gloucester Ins. Co. 17. Younger, 10a. 
Glover 17. Cheatham, 182, 658. 

17. Gentry et al, 1401, 1417, 1421. 

17. Green, 1410a. 

17. Bobbins, 1385. 

17. Thompson, 1475. 
Glynn 17. Bank of England, 1475. 
Goddard 17. Cox, 1250. 

17. Cutts, 81. 

17. Lyman, 1183. 

17. Mallory, 1739. 

17. Merchants' Bank, 533, 684, 
1225, 1361, 1368, 1372. 

17. O'Brien, 1289a. 
. 17. Sa'^er, 894. 
Goddin i?. Crump, 1523, 1557. 

17. Shepley, 622, 879, 908. 
Godin t\ Bank of Commonwealth, 

1618a. 
Godfrey 17. Crisler, 1260. 
Goetz 17. Bank, 174, 533, 1734(f. 

V. Piel, 1252. 
Gogfferty v. Cuthbert, 721. 
Golder 17. Foss, 1198. 
Goldman 17. Blum, 79, 149. 

17. Oppenheim, 196. 

17. Uhlman, 752. 
Goldschmidt 17. First M. Church, 832. 

17. New Orleans, 422, 431. 
Goldsmid 17. Lewis County Bank, 777. 
Goldsmith 17. Blane, 1016. 
Goldstein v. Winkelheimer, 742. 
Goldthwaite 17. Nat. Bank, 1426. 
Golinsky v. Allison, 281. 
Golladay v. Bank of Union, 1074, 1084. 
Gompertz r. Bartlett, 732. 
Gonslin 17. Comman4er, etc., 148. 
€k)Och 17. Bryant, 1418. 

17. Faucett, 866. 
Good 17. Elliott, 195. 

17. Martin, 710, 712, 713, 713a, 
714, 715, 728. 

17. Singleton, 1623. 
Good & Co. 17. Isaacs, 1738. 
Goodale 17. Holdridge, 196. 
Goodall r. Dolley, 449, 1154. 

17. Polhill, 526. 
Goode 17. Harrison, 237. 
Goodenow i?. Tyer, 1260. 
Goodfellow V, Landis, 288a. 
Goodin v. Plugge, 1421a. 
Gooding v. Morgan, 1260. 

17. Underwood, 362. 
Goodloe V, Godley, 600, 656. 

17. Taylor, 43. 
Goodman v. Eastman, 1373a, 1384. 

17. Goodman, 1186a. 

17. Harvey, 774, 788, 943, 986, 
1230, 1503, 1631. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked %, 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxi 



Goodman r. Murks, 884. 

r. Simonds, 142, 391, 776» 776> 
814, 831a, 1503. 
Ooodnow V. Warren, 1000. 
Goodrich v. McDonald, 106. 

V. Stanton, 700a, 717. 
Goodrick r. Gordon, 550, 551, 561. 

V, Tracy, 12666, 1274, 1369. 
Goodsell r. Myers, 220, 230, 233. 
Goodson 17. Johnson, 782. 
Goodwin r. American Nat. Bank, 1572. 

r. Buehler, 815. 

V. Coates, 1278. 

r. Conklin, 831c. 

r. Davenport, 611. 

r. Daris, 1342. 

17. East Hartford, 316, 319, 427. 

V. Jones, 884. 

V. \LcCtLy, 517. 

r. Nickerson, 81. 

r. Roberts, 1504. 
Goose RiTer v. Willow Lake School 

Township, 427. 
Gordan v. Montgomery, 1094. 

V. Phelps, 919. 
Gordon v. Adams, 63. 

V. Anderson, 99: 

V, Brown, 1423. 

t?. Irwin, 730, 736, 739. 

p. Mulcher, 1637. 

17. Price, 126u, 1262, 1264, 1268. 

r. Sutherland, 1390. 

r. Wansey, 725a, 1238. 
Gore V, Gibson, 214, 215. 

r. Wilson, 703. 
Gorgier r. Melville, 1504. 
Gorham r. Carroll, 1217. 
Gorman v. Retchum, 709. 
Gorrish i7. New Bedford Institution for 

Savings, 24a. 
Goshen Nat. Bank t7. Bingham, 741, 
1608. 

9. The State, 366. 

V, Stonington, 1565. 

17. Turpin, 47. 
Goslin 17. Griffin, 830. 
Goss 17. Nelson, 46. 

p. WhitinR, 69. 
Gothrupt 17. Williamson, 145. 
Gottberg i7. U. S. Nat. Bank, 775. 
Goudy r. Gillam, 1215a. 
Gongh V. Staats, 1578. 

V. Tindon, 25, 63. 
Gould 17. Coombs, 1387. 

17. Norfolk Lead Co., 294. 

r. Robson, 1305, 1327. 

V. Segee, 777, 831c, 840. 

p. Stevens, 775, 778. 

V. Town of Sterling, 1523, 1533, 
1550, 1552, 1555a. 
Goulding, Eit parley 366. 



I Goupy 17. Harden, 314, 465, 466, 467, 

471, 611. 
Gove V. Vining, 1103, 1147. 
Governor i7. Carter, 1672. 

17. Daily, 272. 
Gowan 17. Jackson, 999, 1086. 
Gowdry r. Bobbins, 1417. 
Grower i7. Moore, 591, 1175. 
Grabbe 17. Bosse, 174. 
Grable t'. Beatty, 833. 
Grace t7. Adams, 1729a, 1732. 

17. Lynch, 1317. 
Grace Methodist Episcopal Church o. 

Richards, 769a. 
Gracie t7. Sanford, 452. 
Graff r. Adams, 812. 

17. Logue, 854. 
Grafton Bank r. Cox, 1116, 1117, 1144, 
1145. 

V. Woodward, 158, 159. 

Grafton Nat. Bank 17. , 306. 

Graham r. Adams, 56. 

V. Campbell, 305. 

17. Cox, 1646. 

17. Gillespie, 1409. 

17. Keyes, 196. 

17. Larimer, 803. 

17. Marks k Co., 858. 

17. McGuire, 173, 674. 

17. Negus, 1260. 

17. Robertson, 1215. 

V. Rush, 1387. 

r. Sangston, 656, 969, 983, 1019, 
1026. 

V. (J. S. Savings Inst, 294. 

17. Wilson, 709. 
Grammel i7. Carmer, 16a, 20, 22. 
Grand Bank i;. Blanchard, 658. 
Grand Chute 17. Winegar, 1537, 1540, 

1541, 1543. 
Grand Gulf Bank 17. Wood, 658, 741, 

748a. 
Grand Island Banking Co. o. Shoe- 
maker, 1219. 

17. Wright, 248. 
Grand Lodge of Free Masons 17. Wad- 
dill, 384. 
Grand Rapids R. Co. t7. Sanders, 1517a. 
Grand River Cottage 17. Robertson, 

174a. 
Grandin 17. Leroy, 726, 790. 
Gran^ 17. Reigh, 1590, 1591. 
Granite Bank t7. Ayree, 637, 1118. 

17. Ellis, 1190. 
Granite Nat. Bank 17. Fitch, 1237, 

1260, 1789. 
Grant 17. Da Costa, 108. 

17. EUicott, 790. 

17. Ennis, 573, 1196, 1196. 

17. Hawks, 369. 

17. Healy, 916. 



Lxxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphe marked f . 



Grant v. Hunt, 503. 

V. Kidwell, 831a. 

V. MillB, 1281. 

V. Norway, 1733, 1733a. 

17. Shaw, 490, 504, 505, 650. 

V, Spencer, 1108. 

V. Treadwell Co., 387. 

V, Vaughan, 5, 104, 1504. 

V, Walsh, 812. 

V. Woods, 40, 41. 
Qrapengether v, Fejervary, 248. 
Grath v, Barnes^ 80. 
Gratton v. Chilton, 1537. 
Grauel v. Soeller, 850. 
Graul 17. Strutzel, 611. 
Graves v, American Exchange Bank, 
677, 1470. 

17. Clark, 79, 80. 

17. Johnson, 710. 

17. Kay, 4, 72. 

17. Mining Co., 104, 706. 

17. Saline Co., 1537. 

17. Shuman, 71. 

r. Smith, 1340. 
Graw 17. Hannah, 265. 
Gray v. Anderson, 1598. 

17. Bank of Ky., 790. 

V. Bell, 612, 996. 

17. Bowden, 39. 

17. Brown, 1321. 

17. Cooper, 93, 227, 682. 

17. Donahoe, 56. 

17. it'armers' Bank, 392, 1326. 

17. Merriam, 1611a. 

17. Milner, 96, 97, 486. 

17. Wood, 84, 85. 

17. Worden, 55, 56, 57. 
Great Falls Bank r. Farmington, 422, 

435. 
Greathead 17. Walton, 70, 899. 
Greatlake i;. Brown, 455. 
Great West. R. Co. 17. McDowell, 1729. 
Great West. Tel. Co., In re, 800a. 
Greele r. Parker, 503, 550, 551, 560, 

561. 
Greeley i7. Hunt, 996. 

17. People, 1522. 

17. Thurston, 1208, 1209, 1210, 
1212 1232. 

V. Whitehead, 325, 597. 
Green 17. Bickford, 769a. 

17. Burroughs, 1578, 1777. 

17. Clark, 173. 

17. County of Niagara, 1630. 

17. Davies, 102. 

V. Deakin, 366. 

17. De Moss, 1281&. 

17. Drebillis, 88. 

17. Farley, 1005a. 

17. Green, 234. 

17. Holway, 122, 125. 



Green 17. Lake, 1317. 

17. Louthain, 725a, 026. 

17. Neal, 1525. 

t\ Raymond, 508, 515» 616. 

17. Sarmiento, 875. 

17. Shepherd, 1760. 

r, Sizer, 170. 

17. Skell, 303. 

17. Skinner, 1335a. 

17. Sneed, 1373. 

17. Steer, 667. 

17. Van Buskirk^ 907. 

17. Wilkie, 848, 849. 

17. Young, 1770a. 
Green County Bank i7. Chapman, 835. 
Greene 17. Beckner, 1373. 

17. Duncan, 517. 

17. Farley, 1006, 1007. 
Greenfield Bank r. Crafts, 1351, 1362a. 
Greenfield Sav. Bank i7. Stowell, 1373, 

1373a, 1407a. 
Greenfield's Est., 849a. 
Greenhow r. Boyle, 145. 
Greening, Ea parte, 744. 
Greenough t7. McClelland, 1336. 

17. Smead, 455, 712, 715. 
Greenbaum v, Megibben, 1747a. 
Greenshields 17. Crawford, 1218. 
Greenslade 17. Dower, 355, 358a. 
Greenstreet i?. Carr, 1471. 
Greenville 17. Ormand, 790. 
Greenwalt 17. McDowell, 1327. 
Greenway, Ew parte, 1475, 1476, 1480. 

17. Williams, 790, 827. 
Greenwell i?. Haydon, 782. 
Greenwich Bank v. De Groot, 1008, 

1115. 
Greenwich Ins. Co. 17. Oregon Imp. 

Co., 1587, 1623. 
Greer v. Higgins, 802. 

17. La Fayette, 833. 

17. Lane, 1623. 

17. Perkins, 1669, 1685. 
Gregg V. Weston, 10a. 
Gregory v, Allen, 1091. 

17. Higgins, 800a. 

17. Lee. 226. 

17. Leigh, 262, 403. 

17. McCormick, 156. 

17. McNealy, 1192. 

17. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1636. 

17. Paul, 245. 

17. Thomas, 1266. 

17. Walcup, 529. 

17. Wendell, 196a. 
Greiner i?. Uleiy, 93. 
Grenaux 17. Reed, 775. 

17. Wheeler, 796, 814. 
Greusel 17. Hubbard, 7076. 
Grew 17. Burditt, 1437. 
Grierson r. Sutherland, 97. 



References are to 
paragraphs nukrked f • 



TABI«£ OF GASES. 



Ixxiii 



Griffin r. Central Bank» 1682. 

r. Chase, 326. 

V. Conway, 724a, 725a. 

V. Goff, 598, 1163. 

r. Hasty, 724a. 

17. Kemp, 1587, 1592, 1600. 

c. Ranney,' 122. 
GriflSng v, Harris, 1217. 
Griffith r. Burden, 1532. 

V. Cox, 1376. 

t\ Lewin, 812, 1200, 1228. 

r. Reed, 95, 1236, 1272. 

V, Short, 204. 

9. Shipley, 769a. 

1?. Sitgreaves, 177, 1309. 
Griffiths r. Kellogg, 849. 

r. Owen, 1270, 1272. 

r. Perry, 1712. 
Grimes r. Hilleary, 1228, 1471. 

r. Hillenbrand, 192. 

t?. Piersol, 694a. 

r. Talbot, 1471. 
Grimison v, Russell, 41. 
Grimshaw v. Bender, 9, 878, 1438. 
Grimstead v. Briggs, 1401. 
Grinman v. Walker, 1016. 
Grinnell r. Suydam, 1634. 
Grissom r. Commercial Bank, 326a. 
Griswold v. Buechle, 804. 

r. Davis, 65, 824, 1233. 

9. Slocum, 709. 

9. Waddington, 216, 222, 678a, 
1062. 
QiioBwood V, Blair, 195a. 
Grocer Co. r. Bank, 1636a. 
Grocers' Bank v. Penfield, 791, 814, 

826, 8310. 
Groesbeck v. Marshall, 196a. 
Grommes v. Sullivan, 381. 
Grooms r. Oiiff A Co., 769a. 
Gross r. Arnold^ 63. 

In re, 1612a. 

V. Steinle, 1316. 
Grosvenor v. Stone, 998, 1076. 
Grover v. Grover, 24, 1181a. 
Groves v. Ruby, 668. 

V. Sentell. 194. 
Grubbs v. Barber, 203. 
Gnidgeon v. Smith, 983. 
Orumback v. Hirsch, 534. 
Grutacap v. Woulluise, 54, 1453, 

1454. 
Gnelich r. Xat. State Bank, 341. 
Guerin v. Patterson, 812. 
Guidon r. Robson, 1182. 
Guigom r. Xat. Bank, 340e. 

r. Union Tr. Co., 995. 
Gmld 9. Belcher, 201, 204. 

V. Bntler, 1335a. 
Guilford v. Sup. of Chenango County, 

1566. 



I Guillaume v, Hamburg, etc.. Packet 

Co., 1740. 
Guinan's Appeal, 24. 
Guion i;. Doherty, 1260. 
Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe R. Co. v. 

Nelson, 1729. 
Gullett V. Hoy, 725. 
Gunnis v. Weigley, 1303, 1306. 
Gunnison County Bank v, , 803. 

V, Rollins, 1543a. 
Gunson v. Mentz, 1110, 1159. 
Guptill V. Home, 681. 
Gumey v. Behrend, 1727, 17346, 1750, 
1750a. 

17. Langlands, 1219. 

1?. Womersley, 731a, 1269. 
Gustine v. Union Bank, 1322. 
Guthrie v. Imbrie, 408. 
Guy V. Bibend, 185. 

17. Harris, 36. 

17. Hill, 1217. 
Gwathmey v, Clisby, 90. 
Gwin r. Anderson, 1378, 1385. 
Gwinnell r. Herbert, 663a, 705, 714a, 

715. 

H. 

Haas 17. Hall & Farley, 177. 

17. Kansas City R. Co., 1750. 

17. Sackett, 665. 
Haber 17. Brown, 62, 590a, 635, 640, 

664. 
Habersham 17. Lehman, 696. 
Hacker v. Brown, 203. 
Hackett 17. Reynolds, 339. 

r. Watts, 1343. 
Hackettstown Nat. Bank v. Rea, 924. 
Hackley v. Patrick, 370, 412. 
Hackney 17. Jones, 105, 664. 
Hadden 17. Dooley, 1259. 

17. Rodkey, 664a. 
Haddock v. Crocheron, 370, 371, 373. 

r. Murray, 1124. 

17. Woods, 56. 
Haden v. Lehman, 832. 
Haeverle v. O'Day, 504, 566. 
Hagcr r. Rice, 302, 415, 418, 487. 
Hagerman v. Sutton, 834, 1281&. 
Hagerthy «?. Phillips, 703a. 
Hagey v. Hill, 1322. 
Hati^e 17. French, 66. 
Haight 17. Brooks, 1766. 

17. Joyce, 807. 

17. Naylor, 302. 
Hajer 17. Nat. Ger.-Am. Bank, 7956, 

799, 802, 803, 867. 
Haile 17. Pierce, 418. 
Haille 17. Smith, 1745a. 
Haines' Admr. 17. Tannant, 226. 
Haines 17. Dennett, 1217. 

17. Dubois, 688, 978. 



Ixxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
pa/ragraphe marked ( 



Haines v. Pearce, 1277a. 
Hair v. La Bronse, 8L 
Halbert t*. Roaenbalm, 1408. 
Halderinan r. Woodward, 13176. 
Hale 1), Burr, 1144, 1179. 

17. Clouser, 1386. 

V. Danforth, 1104. 

V. Gerrish, 231, 232. 

V. Hitchcock, 688o. 

V, Houghton, 1622. 

V. Milwaukee, r747a. 

V. Wall, 222. 
Haley v. Congdon, 726. 
Halford v, Cameron's Coalbrook, etc., 

Co., 387. 
Halifax v. Lyle, 636. 
Hall 17. Aldaffer, 789. 

17. Allen, 643, 812. 

17. Appeal, 1246. 

17. Auburn Turnpike Co., 386. 

17. Bradbury, 306. 

17. Capital Bank, 632, 1312. 

17. Feathers, 816, 817. 

17. Fuller, 1408, 1668. 

17. Hale, 776. 

17. Henderson, 187. 

17. Keese, 173. 

17. Mays, 1733. 

17. McHenry, 1387. 

17. Mobile A M. R. Co., 748, 1281, 
1281&. 

r. Newcomb, 709, 713e. 

17. New Farmers' Bank Tr., 264. 

17. Phelps, 112, 1220. 

17. Railway Co., 1623. 

17. Rodgers, 1763. 

17. Shorter, 128, 130. 

17. Smith, 361, 611, 1613. 

17. Tafts, 100. 

17. Toby, 88. 688b. 

17. Wilson, 761, 762, 768, 776, 807, 
840. 
Hallam 17. Felleren, 882. 

17. Tillinghast, 334. 
Hallenbeck v. Hahn, 1623. 
Hallett 17. Holmes, 1319. 
Halley v, Adams, 26. 

17. Falconer, 700a. 

17. Jackson, 1092a. 
Halliday 17. Hart, 1327. 

17. Martinett, 1057. 
Hallock 17. Jaudin, 124, 126. 
Hallowell, etc., Bank 17. Howard, 1672a, 

1689, 1691. 
Hallowell Nat. Bank 17. Marston, 1103, 

1104. 
Halls 17. Bank of State, 324. 
Halsey v, Lange, 724a. 
Halstead 17. Brown, 1317. 

17. Skelton, 619, 642, 1619. 

17. The Mayor, 482. 



Haly 17. Brown, 1116. 

17. Lane, 242, 676, 1116. 

17. Smith, 196. 
Hamber v. Roberts^ 1218. 
Hamberger 17. Miller, 719, 720a, 721, 

722. 
Hamblen 17. Folts, 12815. 
Hamblet 17. Bliss, 1200. 
Hamer 17. Moore, 26. 
Hamick 17. Bamett, 1339. 
Hamilton 17. Breman, 763. 

17. Cutchings, 632. 

17. Cunningham, 1277, 1277a. 

V. Hooper, 1387. 

17. Lumber Co., 1590. 

17. Marks, 776, 796. 

V. Newcastle R. Co., 382. 

17. Prouty, 1317. 

17. Scull's Admr., 194. 

17. Seaman, 370, 373. 

17. Summers, 369. 

17. Vought, 776, 7966. 

17. Watson, 1309. 

17. Wilson, 795a. 
Hamilton & Co. 17. Stewart, 1289. 
Hamilton Gin Co. 17. Sinker, 62, 62a» 

1209. 
Hamlin t7. Abell, 740a. 

17. Simpson, 1588, 1690, 1692. 
Hammett 17. Bamum, 869. 
Hammill 17. First Nat. Bank, 770. 
Hammin 17. Richardson, 670, 672. 
Hammond 17. Barclay, 491, 498a. 

r. Dufeme, 1070, 1080. 

17. Hopping, 207. 

In re, 736a. 
Hammond's Case, 1219. 
Hamper, Ex parte, 361. 
Hapgood 17. Watson, 364. 
Hanauer v. Anderson, 1066. 

17. Boane, 200, 204, 789. 

17. Gray, 199. 

17. Woodruff, 171. 
Hance 17. Miller, 694, 1196, 1788. 

17. Wabash Western Ry. Co., 
1741. 
Hancock Bank r. Joy, 262, 681. 
Hand 17. Armstrong. 172, .1468a. 
Handy 17. Sibley, 832a. 
Handey 17. Barrons, 1386. 
Hanessler t7. Green, 726. 
Hanger 17. Abbott, 218. 
Hanish 17. Kennedy, 1342. 
Hankey 17. Downey, 799. 

17. Himter, 1261. 

17. Trotman, 612. 
Hannibal, etc.,R. Co. r. Marion Co, 

1646, 1648, 1660, 1664. 
Hannon v. Sullivan, 674, 676. 
Hannum v. Richardson, 670, 672. 
Hanold 17. Eeyes, 832. 



Beferencea are to 
pamgrapha markefj^ f. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixzv 



Hanover Nat. Bank t*. Am. Dock & Fr. 
Co., 271, 795a, 1714. 
V. Blake, 1289. 
Hanrick r. Andrews, 920. 

V. Farmers* Bank, 1450. 
Hansard v. Robinson, 1228, 1475, 1476, 

1477, 1482, 1623. 
Hansberger v. Geigher, 1318. 
Hansborough v. Gray, 1335a. 
Hanselman v. Doyle, 1425. 
Hansford r. Freeman, 855. 
Hansom v. Crawley, 1400. 

r. Vernon, 1523. 
Hapgood V, Wellington, 833. 
Harbeck 9. Craft, 1587, 1588, 1652. 

V. Vanderbilt, 1491a. 
Harbert v. Dument, 1317, 1322. 
Harbison v. Bank of Indiana, 815. 

r. Bank, 815, 819. 
Harbury v. Kumpf, 1316, 1317a. 
Hardeman v. Bank of Middleton, 359. 
Harden v. Boyce, 1060. 
Hardester v. Tate, Bib, 
Hardin v. Olson, 62. 
Harding v. RockJford, etc., R. Co., 1551. 
V. State, 145. 
V. Waters, 7136. 
t>, Wormley, 1250, 1251. 
Hardiflon r. Davis, 177, 1226. 
Hardman t\ Bellhonse, 1289a. 
Hardy r. Brier, 90. 

V. Chesapeake Bank, 1370, 1655. 
V, First Nat. Bank of Newton, 

803. 
V. Merriman, 382. 
r. Merriweather, 384, 385. 
V. Norton, 142. 
V, Pilcber, 418, 487. 
r. Warthen, 1311. 
V, Waters, 227, 682. 
V. White, 721. 
V. Woodroofe, 635. 
Hare v, Henty, 332, 601, 1592, 1599. 

t. Robinson, 195a. 
Harger v. Wilson, 752, 758, 766. 

V. Worrall, 814. 
Haigons r. Lahens, lAHn. 
Hai^ave r. Smee, 1755. 
Harick V. Jones, 760. 
Harker v, Anderson, 1567, 1587, 1595, 

1600, 1607. 
Harhw v. Brown, 1468a. 

t?. Ely, 1625. 
Harlcy r.* Thornton, 737, 1676a. 
Barman v. Hale, 81b, 710. 

r. Howe, 86. 
Harmer r. Killing, 235. 

t. Steele, 1285. 
Harmon v. Hale, 1338. 
Harmony v. Lincoln, 382. 
Hamer v. Dipple, 223. 



Harness v. Home, 202. 
Harpending v, Daniel, 1181a. 

V. Gray, 1230. 
Harper v. Butler, 883, 904. 

17. Calhoun, 392. 

V. Clark, 124, 125. 

V. Hampton, 891. 

17. Nat. Bank, 308a. 

V. CNeil, 240. 

V, West, 491. 

V. Young, 806. 
Harrah v, Doherty, 703. 
Harrel v. Bixler, 616. 
Harrell v. Broxton, 782. 

V. Nat. Bank, 142, 143a. 

1?. Parrott, 1385. 
Harriman v. Hill, 1190. 

V, Sanborn, 50. 
Harrington v. Baker, 366. 

V. Boston & Butte Mining Co., 
815. 

1?. Brown, 86. 

17. Claflin & Co., 1506a. 

V, Dorr, 726, 786. 

17. Findley, 1309. 

V. Fry, 1218. 

V. Stratton, 202. 
Harris t\ Bank of Jacksonville, 1400, 
1417, 1421. 

r. Bradley, 672. 

17. Brooks, 1309, 1332, 1336. 

17. Clark, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 50. 
451, 455, 594. 

17. Harris, 186. 

17. Lewis, 49. 

V. Memphis Bank, 1032, 1034. 

t\ Nichols, 790, 797. 

17. Robinson, 991, 1115. 

V. Shipway, 1274. 

17. Wall, 236. 
Harris Mfg. Co. 17. Aufinson, 62, 182. 
Harrisburg Bank 17. Meyer, 789. 
Harrisburg Tr. Co. v. Shufeldt, 1435a. 
Harrison t*. Bailey, 1048. 

V. Black, 271a. 

17. Close, 1294. 

17. Courtland, 1335. 

r. Crowder, 600. 

17. Edwards, 889, 895. 

17. Field, 1298. 

17. Firth, 805. 

17. McClelland, 262, 263. 

17. McKim, 719. 

V. Morrison, 80. 

17. Nicollet, 1566. 

17. Pike, 679. 

17. Powers, 70. 

17. Richardson, 209. 

17. Robinson, 1055. 1115, 1116. 

17. Ruscoe, 979, 981, 989, 990, 991 
998. 



Ixxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked $. 



Harrison v, Sheirbum, 698. 

V. Smith, 336. 

V. Stacy, 884. 

V. Walder, 85o. 

f?. Williams, 20. 

V. Wortham, 1425. 
Harrison County Justices v. Holland, 

1557. 
Harrop v, Fisher, 744. 
Harrow v, Dugan, 1189. 
Harsh v. Klepper, 1411. 
Harshman 17. Bates County, 1523a, 

1524, 1535a. 
Hart V, Alexander, 369a. 

17. Boiler, 1268, 1273. 

17. Church, 184. 

17. Eastman, 996. 

17. Hudson, 1789. 

V, Long, 1109a. 

17. McClellan, 1115. 

17. Mo., etc., F. & M. Ins. Co., 386. 

17. Penna. R. Co., 1740a. 

17. Potter, 369. 

17. Smith, 617. 

17. Stephens, 254, 257, 1184. 

17. Stickney, 787. 

17. U. S. Trust Co., 793a. 

17. Wills, 868. 
Hart et al. r. Livermore Foundry Ma- 
chine Co., 197, 807, 808. 
Harter 17. Kemochan, 1521, 1523a, 
1550. 

17. Moore, 1317a. 
Hartford Bank r. Barr;, 392, 572, 624. 

17. Green, 654, 654a. 

17. Stedman, 572, 1005a, 1035, 
1039. 
Hartford F. Ins. Co. i?. Wilcox, 275. 
Hartley 17. Case, 982, 1036, 1235. 

17. Manton, 1290, 1291. 

17. Rice, 196. 

17. Wharton, 231. 

17. Wilkinson, 59, 60, 79, 151. 
Hartman v. First Nat. Bank, 1769a. 

17. Greenhow, 448. 

17. Redman, 1316. 

17. Shaffer, 180. 
Harts 17. Emery, 1181. 
Hartshorn 17. Hartshorn, 69. 
Hartwell v. Hemenway, 666. 
Hartzell 17. McClurg, 1199, 1200, 1201. 
Harvard Pub. Co. 17. Benjamin, 249. 
Harvey 17. Archibald, 923. 

17. Cane, 92, 143a, 490. 

17. Girard Nat. Bank, 212. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 1221, 1266c, 
1788, 1789. 

17. Irvine, 944. 

1*. Martin, 499. 

17. Nelson, 1095a. 

17. Smith, 1406. 



Harvey i7. Towers, 166, 808. 

17. Troupe, 1149, 1165, 1167. 
Harwood 17. Brown, 80. 

17. Jarvis, 1086. 
Hasbrouck 17. Milwaukee, 1556, 1563. 

17. Palmer, 56. 
Hascall 17. Life Assn. of America, 485. 

17. Whitmore, 803. 
Haseltine 17. Dunbar, 174. 

17. Siggers, 1708a. 
Hasey 17. White Pigeon Beet Sugar 

Co., 424, 482. 
Haskell 17. Boardman^ 1040, 1041, 1131, 
1130. 

17. Champion, 1387. 

17. Cornish, 406. 

17. Jones, 199a, 797. 

f. Lambert, 60, 160. 

17. Mitchell, 741, 745. 
Haskins v. Throne, 356, 357. 
Haslett 17. Ehrick, 1043. 

17. Kunhardt, 1111. 
Hassly v. Sibley, 731. 
Hassoullicr i*. Harkenck, 51. 
Hastings v. Pepper, 1729, 1742. 
Hatch 17. Atkinson, 24. 

17. Bamett, 688c, 858. 

17. Burrough, 197, 807. 

17. Calvert, 784a. 

V. Fourth Nat. Bank, 366, 16125. 

17. Frays, 108. 

r. Gillette, 36. 

17. Searles, 147. 
Hatcher r. Nat. Bank, 789. 

17. Nat. Bank of Phila., 832a. 

f. Stalworth, 503. 
Hatchett 17. Baddeley, 243, 246. 
Hatelv t'. Pike, 415, 416, 717. 
Hatfield 17. Griffith, 149, 150. 

17. Phillips, 1731, 1731a. 
Hathaway v. Haynes, 1734c. 
Hathwick v, Owen, 99. 
Hattan 17. Holmes, 1370. 
Hatten v. Robinson, 1687. 
Hauer 17. Patterson, 719. 
Hauerwas v, Goodloe, 69. 
Haug r. Riley, Admr., 729, 741, 787a, 

1233. 
Haughton 17. Ewbank, 296. 
Havemeyer 17. Iowa Co., 1523, 1525. 
Haven v. Grand June. R. Co., 1491a, 
1492. 

17. Hobbs, 299. 
Havens v. Talbott, 1105. 
Haverhill, etc., Ins. Co. 17. Newhall, 

403. 
Haverin i\ Donnell, 81, 517. 
Havrimon 17. Shoman, 1245. 
Hawes r. Blackwell, 1636a. 

17. Mulholland, 156, 834, 835. 
Hawkes 17. Phillips, 713a, 1760. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxvii 



HawkeB v. Salter, 1041, 1054. 

r. Saunders, 182. 
Hawkey v, Berwick, 636. 

r. Fooie, 1260. 
Hawkins r. Cardy, 668. 

tf. Collier, 174. 

t\ Neal, 174o. 

tf. Rntt, 1024. 

V. Watkins, 56. 
Hawkins, Rec. v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 

748, 834. 
Hawks V, Hinchleff, 1266a. 
Hawley i;. Bibb, 106a. 

V. Jette, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1276, 
1568. 

r. Sloo, 918. 
Hawse r. Crowe, 1260. 
Haxtun r. Bishop, 646, 1181a, 1685, 

1601, 1692. 
Hay r. Ayling, 204. 

17. Ooldsmidt, 292, 293. 

V. Jaeckle, 792, 793, 816, 819. 
Hayden r. Nicolletti, 684. 

V, Lauffenburger, 1221. 

V, Stone, 894a. 

r. Thrasher, 1339. 

V. Weldon, 713d. 
Haydock r. Lynch, 60, 161. 
Hayes r. Allen, 8 16. 

9. Canfield, 748. 

9. Caulfield, 667. 

V. Kingston, 782. 

V. Ward, 1311. 

9. Warren, 182. 
Haynes v. Birks, 992, 1036, 1039, 1043, 
1235. 

r. Rudd, 196. 
Hays V. Bank, 1567. 

«. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 999, 999a, 
1086. 

V. Crutcher, 403. 

r. Dickery, 573. 

r. Hathom, 813, 1192&. 

r. McClurg, 1275. 

V. Myrick, 1320. 

r. N. W. Bank, 970. 

17. Plumber, 203, 748. 

v. Southgate, 11926. 

r. Stone, 1268. 
Hays et al. v. Odoni, 1373a. 
Hayward r. Bank of England, 666. 

p. Burke, 371. 

9. French, 267. 

V. Pilgrim Soc., 383. 
Haywood 17. Seeber, 782. 
Hazard v. Cole« 424. 

T. Spencer, 166, 640, 644, 649, 812. 

t. White, 1093, 1147, 1166, 1317. 
Hazlehurst 17. Franklin, 921. 
Hazleton v. Union Bank, 1702. 
Hazzard v. Duke, 721. 



Head v. Homblower, 1604. 
Headly v. Reed, 1645. 
Heald v. Davis, 1227. 
Healey v. Dolson, 1266, 1312. 

17. Story, 402. 
Healy 17. Oilman, 1688, 1696, 1646, 
1647. 

17. Gorman, 919. 
Heane r. Rogers, 1220. 
Heaps 17. Dunham, 190. 
Heard 17. Bank, 688o. 

17. Dubuque County Bank, 61, 68, 
627, 697, 1782. 

V. Stanford, 258. 
Heartt 17. Rhodes, 1587, 1623. 

17. State Bank, 1708(1. 
Heath, Ba parte, 1077, 1085, 1170. 

17. Achey, 312. 

17. BUck, 1373, 1386. 

17. Pane, 293. 

17. Samson, 166« 369a. 

17. Silverthom Mining Co., 827. 

17. Vancott, 713e. 
Heaton 17. Ainley, 1260, 1251, 1396. 

17. Hulbert, 1781, 1786. 

17. Knowlton, 193. 

17. Myers, 156, 303, 403. 
Hecht 17. Batcheller, 737. 
Heckman v. Manning, 1294. 
Hedger 17. Dixon Co., 1555(. 

17. Steavenson, 982, 983. 
Hedley r. Bainbridge, 358a. 

17. Reed, 1646. 
Heebner 17. Shephard, 203. 
Heenan v. Nash, 362, 488. 
HefTelfinger r. Shutz, 1420. 
HefTerlin 17. Krieger, 792, 1326. 
HefTerman v. Botelor, 1227, 1230a. 
Heffner 17. Brownell, 751. 

17. Wenrick, 1418. 
Hefford r. Morton, 1305. 
HefTron 17. Hanaford, 366. 
Hefner v. Dawson, 1351. 

17. Vandolah, 1352a. 
Heffeman r. Moore, 28, 46. 
Heidelback 17. Nat. Park Bank, 1426, 

1612. 
Heidenheimer t7. Blumenkrou, 707, 712. 
Heise 17. Bumpass, 70, 131, 713a, 1207. 
Heisler, Admr. r. Lyon, 166. 
Hefner 17. Brownell, 80, 403. 
Heiskell i7. Farmers' Bank, 1731a, 

1734a, 1734&, 1734c. 
Helborn 17. Artus, 663. 
Helena Nat. Bank v. Rocky Mt. Tele- 
graph Co., 292, 293, 298. 
Helfenstein's Estate, 25. 
Heller 17. Meis, 834. 
Hellings 17. Hamilton, 1676. 
Helm 17. Swiggett, 1708c. 
Helmer 17. Commercial Bank, 688a, 824. 



bufcviii 



7AB2<9 QS PA99S; 



References are fo 
po/ragrapha marked- %. 



Helmer v, Krolick, 43; ^770. . 
Helms V. Agricultural Co., 1354. 
Helmsley v. Loader, 2^7, 1220. 
Helper v, Ald^n, 32. 
Helzer v. Helzer, 1473. 
Heman v, FraneiBco, 91. 
Hemmenway v. Stone, 94, 1390. 
Hemphill v. Bank of Alabama, 147. 

V. Hamilton, 267. 
Hemrick v. WQst^ 816. 
Henchan v. Hast, 159. 
Henchman v, I^brand, 1282. 
Hendershott r. Kat. Bank, 1005. 
Henderson v. Anderson, 1217. 

V. Case, 782. 

V, Gumming?, 321. 

V. Davidson, 573, 576. 

17. Fox, 225. 

V, Irby, 1469. 

V, Johnson, 1437,* 1764. 

V, Palmer» IW. 
. V. Pope, 1572, 1576. 

V, Waggoner, 200. • 
.cr. U. S. Nat. Bank, 1620, 163&. 
Hendricks v, Franklin, 921, 1438. 

». Judah, 728.' 
Hendricks, Admr. t\ Thornton, 100. 
Hendrie v, Berkowitz, 753. 

V. Kinnear, 713e. * 
Henley 'v. Holzer, 724a,. 726a, 803, 

1233. 
Henman v. Dlekinsdn, 1418. 
Henry v. Allen, 802, 1634* 

17. Bishop, 112. 

17. Coleman; 150: - ' ' 

17. Conley, 1260. 

17. Gilliland, 1318. 

t7. Heeb, 1351, 18G2a. 

17. Hyde, 1741. ... 

17. Jones, 626. 

17. Lee, 603. 

17. Martin, 340e, 1612a. 

17. Ritenour, 184, 186.' 

17. Sansom, 752. 

17. Sneedr784a, 799,, 802, 815,«19. 

17. Thompson, 1458a. 
Hensdill 17. Safford, 800a. 
Henshaw 17. -Dutton, 68: • * * ' 

Hensinger 17. Dyer, 177, 857, 1952a. 
Hentz 17. Jewell, 195a. 
Hepburn v. Griswold, 1248. 

17. Toleddno, 1180. 
Herbage 17. McEntee, 713a. ' ' 
Herbert i?. Servin, 13176. 
,.,i r. Wi^ter8 et aJ., 1731. 
Hereth 17. Meyer, 50. 

17. Merchahts' Nat. Bank, 797, 803, 
804, 1394. 
Herider i7. Phoenix Loan .Ca, 1586, 

1592. 
Herman 17. Gray, 203. 



Herman V. SSuater, 174a 803, 8)^. 

17. Williams, 1312. 
Hem 17. Nichols, 391. 
Herndon 17. Givens, 1471. 
Herrick 17. Baldwin, 1145, 1146. 

17. Bennett, 88. 

17. Borst, 1339. 

17. Carman, 713e. 

17. Malin, 1418. 
' 17. Wpoly^irton, 608, 1215. 
Herring 17. Kesee, 1567, 1568, 1569» 
1573. • 

17. Sanger, 1273. 

17. Woodhull, 688. 
Herron 17. Frost, 241. 
Hersey 17. Elliott, 260, 685. 
Hert V, Oehler, 1385. 
Hertel .i7> Bpgert** 266. 
Herter 17. Goss, 508. 

Hesse 17. Dille, 12666. 

Hestone i7, Williamson, 664a. 
Heth Township 17. Lewis, 437. 
Hetherington 17. Kemp, 1054« 
Heugh. 17. Jones, 848. 
Heurtematte r. Morris, 532, 534. 
Hevey's Case, 1345. 
Hewins r. Cargill, 1384. 
Hewitt 17. Goodrich, 1318, 1327. 

17. Kaye, 24o, 26. 

17. Thompson, 1042. 
Heylin i7. Adamson, 669a. 
Heyward 17. Heyward, 256. 
Heywood 17. Perrin, 79, 160, 154, 1410. 

17. Pickering, 1599. 
.' t7. Steams, 725. 

17. Waring, 1279. 
Hibbard 17. Holloway, 36. 
Hibblewhite v. McMowrie, 148. » -^ '• 
Hiternian Bianlb i7..£vermaii, ^6^ 725» 

7266. 
Hickerson v, Raiguell, 790. 
Hickligg 17. Hardey, 450. 
Hicks V. Brown; 921. 

17. Hinde, 303, 311. 

17. Randolph, .1306a. . 
Hidden v. Bishop, 790. 
Hier 17. Staples, 248. 
Higgins 17. B. ' R. & Aw. & M. Co.,. 
1247. 

17. Briggs, 262. 

17. Bullock, 667. 

17. Lansingh, 1506. 

17. Morrison, 999a. 

17. Nichols, 642. 

17. O'Donnell, 159. 

17. Ridffway, 81a, 174, 189, 866. 

17. Senior, 303, 740a. 

r. Watson, 716, 1776. 
Highmore 17. Primrose, 108. 
Hightower 17. Ivey, 1093, 1172, 132^ 

17. Maull, 87. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked $. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxix 



Higlej r. Newell, 76^ . - 

Higley & Co. v. B. C. R. St N. Ry. Co., 

17290. 
Hilborn v. Alford» 74. 

p. ArtuB, 663a. 
Hildebum r. Turner, 955. 
Hflder v. Seelye, 1476. 
Hill V. Alezi^nder, 742. , . 

■ f?. 'Anord, 41. 

r. Allen, 643. 

9. Barnes, 1418. 

c. Bostick, 1266, 1327. 

r. Buckminster, 179. 

r. Calvin, 17856. 

r. City of Memphis, 422, 1532a. 

V. Cooley, 1379. 

«. Dunham, 69. 

r. Ely, 721, 722. 

r. Gaw, 80. 

V. Halford, 41. 

9. Heap, 450, 1105, 1170. 

r. Henry, 1211. 

V. Kraft, 784a, 800, 800a. 

17. Lewis, 104, 105, 663, 663a, 669, 
743. 

r. Martin, 1170. 

i>. Mo. Pac Ry. Co., 1741. 

r. Murray, 775. 

V. Norris, 1070, 1082. * 

V. Norvell, 626, 1027. 

V. Pine River Bank, 1708(2. 

V. Planters* Bank, 992. 

9. Shields, 699, 717, 7266. 

P« Stevenson, 24a. 

1^. Sutherland, 1250, 1251. 

r.TTiixton, 862. 

V. Todd, 54. 

V. Trust Co., 1608, 1610a. 

r. Varrell, 1030, 1117. 

17. Whidden, 163. 

r. Wilked, 891, 891a. 
Hill Mfg. Co. V, Providence Steam 

Co., 1740a. 
Hillegaa r. Stephenson, 703. 
HiUs r. Place, 642, 643. 
Hillsinger P, Georgia R. Bank, 1707. 
Hilton r. Houghton, 67. ' 

r. Shepherd,. 987, 1067, 1125. 
Himmelman v, Hotaling, 612, 654, 

1590. 
Hinekley r. Merchants' Bank, 1461, 
1470. 

t. Pfister, 1339, 1533. 

V, Union P. R. Co., 782, 1461, 
1470, 1500^ 1506. 
Hindhaugh v. Blak^y, 4975, 504. 
Hindley r. Mar^n, 886. 
Hine r. Alleby, 1036, 1119, 1235. 
Hinely i?. Margarita,. 234, 235. 
Hinesburgh v, Sumner, 190. 
Hiskley r. Fourth Nat. Bank, 643. 



Hinsdale v. Bank of Orange, H7.8j 
1479, 1482, 1093. 

17. Jerman, 156. 

17. Lamed, 1685. 

17. Miles, 1464. 
Hinsdill v. Sefford, 800a. 
Hinton v. Bank of Columbus, 532. 

17. DofT, 1209. 
Hipp & Co. 17. So. R. Co., 1731a. 
Hirschfield 17. Smith, 94, 1391. 
Hirshfield v. Ludwig, 16a. 
Hissey v. Hall, 748. 
Hitchcock r. Buchanan, 411. 

17. City of Galveston, 1520. 

17. Sawyer, 124. 
Hitchinffs v, Edmunds, 89. 

17. St Louis, etc., Co., 293, 390. 
Hixon 17. Hetherington, 186. 
Hoagland i7..EIrck, 50. 
Hoar 17. Da Costa, 655. 
Hoare i7..Cazenove, 521, 1527. 

17. Graham, 79,. 159, 719. 
Hobart 17. Dodge, 89. 
Hobbs 17.. Chemical Nat. Bank, 960, 
961, 962, 964. . 

17. Straine, 1016. 
Hobeon 17. Davidson, 1741. 

17. Hassett, 185, 403. 
Hochmark v, Richler, 1294, 1389. 
Hodge et al, r. Farmers' Bank of 

Frankfort, Ind., 417, 1373, 1387. 
Hodge 17. Mason, 203. 
Hodges 17. Black, 832. 

0. City of Buffalo, 1519a. 

'«: Eastman, 112. 

r. Elyton Land Co., 1322. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 395. 

17. Gait, 1029a. 

17. Hunt, 233. 

V. Nash, 726, 789, 790. 

17. Runyan, 443ct. 

». Shuler, 52, 159, 976, 977. 

17. Steward, 104, 664a. 

17. Traux et al., 193, 1289,' 
Hodgin 17. Bank, 326. 
Hodgson 17. Dexter, 445, 1564. 

17. Shaw, 1237. 
Hodson 17. Eugene Glass Co., 779, 796, 

815. 
Ho^ 17. Jarman, 1418. 
Hofr 17. Baldwin, 1056. 
Hoffecker v. Moon, 1203. 
Hoffman v. HoUingsworth, 926, 1144. 
Hoffman & Co. 17. Bank of Milwau- 
kee, 174, 175, 479, 533, 534, 
803. 

17. Butler, 1332a. 

17. First Nat Bank, 336. 

V. Foster, 726. 

17. Smith, 1082. 
Hofheimer 17. Loesen, 995. 



Ixxx 



TABLE OF GASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



Hogan f7. Cuyler, 616. 

17. Moore, 803. 
Hogarth t?. Latham, 367. 
Hoge 17. Lansing, 753a. 
Hogg 17. Skene, 369. 

17. Snaith, 292, 293. 
Hogshead r. Williams, 1341. 
Hogue 17. Davis, 703. 
Roil 17. Rathbone, 1481. 
Hoit V. Underbill, 233. 
Holbrook 17. Basset, 385. 

17. Camp, 713<7. 

17. Lackey, 1428. 

17. Mix, 775. 

17. New Jersey Zinc Co., 1706f, 
1708^. 

17. Payne, 499o. 

17. Vibbard, 899. 
Holcomb 17. Wyckoff, 757, 758. 
Holden i7. Cosgrove, 168, 177. 

17. Phcenix Rattan Co., 814a. 

1?. Trust Co., 1458a. 
Holdsworth v. Hunter, 114, 115, 116. 
Holeman 17. Hobson, 181, 751, 814. 
Holford 17. Wilson, 1165. 
Holladay 17. Atkinson, 174, 179, 180, 
227. 

r. Patterson, 188. 

17. Sigil, 1468, 1471. 
Holland 17. Hatch, 1398. 

17. Smit, 800a. 

17. Turner, 1134. 

17. Van Beil, 284. 
Holland TV. Co. r. Waddell, 1266o. 
Holleman v. Rogers, 1342. 
Hollen 17. Davis, 86. 
HoUenberg v. Lane, 1228. 
Holley 17. Adams, 25. 

17. Holley, 575. 
HoUiday 17. Lewis, 67. 
Hollier v. Eyre, 1334, 1336. 
HoUingshead p. Am. Nat. Bank of 

Macon, 850. 
HoUingsworth i7. City of Detroit, 1513. 

17. Moulton, 197. 
HoUins 17. Fowler, 13725. 
HoUoway 17. Wabash Ry. Co., 1729a. 
Hohn 17. Atlas Nat. Bank, 802. 

17. Jamieson, 1769. 
Holm 17. Sandberg, 185. 
Holman 17. Gilliam, 94. 

t\ Holson, 758, 778. 

17. Langtree, 12/6, 1296. 

17. Whiting, 1085, 1135. 
Holme 17. Karsper, 812, 814, 816. 
Holmes 17. Bazik of Ft. Gaines, 891a, 
1378. 

17. City of Shreveport, 1532. 

17. Crane, 1730a. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 717. 

V, Gardner, 758. 



Holmes ^^ Holmes, 257. 

17. Hooper, 698d. 

17. Jacques, 101. 

17. Kerrison, 619*. 

17. Kidd, 725. 

V. Preston et al., 713a, 970, 1786. 

V. Roe, 1590, 1592, 1598. 

17. Seashore Electric Ry. Co., 
1509&. 

17. Sinclair, 94. 

17. Smyth, 83is, 1067. 

17. Trumper, 1406. 

17. Williams, 1789. 
Holohan 17. Mix, 812. 
Holroyd 17. Whitehead, 1186. 
Holt 17. Moore, 81. 

17. Ross, 538. 
Holton & Winn 17. Hubbard, etc., Co., 

1290. 
Holtz V, Boppe, 456, 591. 
Holz 17. Woodside Brewing Co., 713c, 

715. 
Home Bank 17. Dromgoole, 41. 
Home Fire Ins. Co. 17. Fitch, 1458a. 
Home Ins. Co. 17. Daubinspeck, 203. 

17. Greene, 978. 
Home Nat. Bank 17. Estate of Water- 
man, 1312. 

17. Newton, 326a. 
Home Say. Bank i7. Hosie, 606. 
Homer i7. Wanis, 1392, 1410. 
Homes 17. Austin, 1587. 
Honore 17. Blakewell, 1281. 
Hood 17. Hallenbeck, 407, 418, 1095a. 

17. Bobbins & Smith. 144, 175. 
Hood's Appeal, 1417. 
Hoodless 17. Read, 1261. 
Hook 17. Pratt, 195, 698. 
Hooker 17. Gallagher, 683. 
Hooks 17. Anderson, 713e. 
Hooper i7. Keay, 1250, 1251, 1253. 

». Rathbone, 1741. 

17. Williams, 130. 
Hoopes 17. Collingwood, 143, 1385. 
Hoover, Assignee 17. Wise, 344. 

17. Kilander, 859. 

17. McCormick, 1311, 1326 1328. 
Hope V. Barker, 53, 54a. 

17. Cust, 366. 
Hopes 17. Alder, 1158, 1162. 
Hopkins 17. Adams, 1481, 1486. 

r. Beebee, 22. 

17. Crittenden, 1458a. 

17. Detwiler, 1260, lz62. 

17. Halliburton, 62a. 

17. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 849a. 

17. Kent, 728. 

17. Liswell, 1162. 

17. Mehaffy, 307. 

17. Railroad Co., 32. 

17. Richardson, 1763. 



References are to 
parugrapke marked S. 



TABLE OF OASES. 



Hopkiiuon <?. Forster, 1567, 163C5, 

1637, 1638, 1639, 1645. 
Hopkirk v. Page, 6640^ 748a, 1074, 

1076, 1080. 
Hoplej r. Ihifresne, 1152, 1155. 
Hopper V, Eiland, 63. 
Hopping V. Quin, 787a, 1200. 
Hopps r. Savage, 02, 142. 
Horah v. Long, 1187, 1189. 
Horn r. Bennett, 835. 

r. City Bank, 1387, 1413. 
9. McKinney, 207, 761. 
Homblower v. Frond, 827. 
Hombrooke v. Lucas, 1260. 
Home V. Planters' Bank, 1252. 
V, Redfearne, 40. 

V. Rouquette, 911. 
Homer r. Missonri, 1743. 
Homes v. Hale, 850. 
Horathal 9. Steamboat Co., 1740a. 
Horrigan r. Wyman, 815&. 
Horst V. Wagner, 1415. 
Horton v. Bayne, 796, 812, 816. 

r. Town of Thompson, 1532, 1562. 
Hortons r. Townes, 291, 322. 
Hortonsman v. Henshaw, 533, 534, 538, 

1354, 1356, 1363, 1366. 
Hosldnson v. Bagby, 810, 812, 1181a. 
Hosier r. Beard, 209, 212, 806a. 
Hosstater v. Wilson, 52. 
Hoichin v, Sioor, 1267. 
Hotchkiss V, Marion, 1491c. 

r. Mosher, 39, 704. 

V. Plaster Co., 830, 831, 831a. 
Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 88, 1385. 
Houck i?. Graham, 81ft, 710. 
Hough V. Barton, 1472, 1482, 1483. 

». Gray, 1779. 
Houghton v. Adams, 1676a. 

f?. City of Boston, 1623. 

V. Ely, 713a. 

9. Francis, 1398. 
Houk r. Walker, 354. 
Hoiuatonie Bank v. Laflin, 979, 983. 
House p. Adams, 1059, 1060, 1070, 
1071. 

9. Kerentz, 1636. 

V, Vinton Bank, 1002. 
Honsego r. Cowne, 972, 1017. 
Houston v. Banner, 712, 1017. 
Honsmn v. Rogers, 1689. 
Honx V. Russell, 1687. 
Hovey r. Bannister, 403. 

V. Magill, 404. 

9. Sebring, 1192a. 
Howard Bank v. Bowman, 643. 

V, Carson, 959. 

r. Central Bank, 1453. 

9. Duncan, 1351, 1352a. 
Howard v. Ives, 331, 902, 1039, 1043. 

9. Johnson, 1309. 

Vol. I — vi 



Howard r. Jones, 1757, 1760. 
V. McCall, 1250. 

r. Mississippi Valley Bank, 1359. 
V. Oakes, 254. 

r. Palmer, 106. 

V, Shepherd, 1745a. 

V, Simpkins, 60. 

V. Van Geierson, 713«. 

V. Windham Bank, 24a (3). 

r. Windham County, 1186. 
Howard A Co. r. Walker, 335, 342. 
Howe 17. Bowes, 1119. 

V. Bradley, 979, 984, 1018, 1019, 
1186a. 

V. Carpenter, 124, 125. 

V. Hale, 1483. 

V. Hartness, 56, 1703. 

V. Litchfield, 194. 

V, Merrill, 707, 719, 769. 

17. Ould, 63. 800a. 

V. Potter, 768. 

V. Purves, 1390. 

V, Starkweather, 1708a. 

V, Taggart, 186. 

V. Wildes, 240. 
Howe, Knox & Co. v. Ould &, Carring- 

ton, 63. 
Howe Mach. Co. v. Haden, 1201. 
Howell V, Adams, 1707a. 

V. Crane, 174, 726a, 728, 786, 803. 

V. Dimock, 833. 

V, Jones, 789, 1789. 

t?. Mfg. Co., 3706. 

V, Wilson, 736, 899. 

V. Wright, 182. 
Howry r. Eppinger, 61, 776. 
Howestein v. Barnes, 62. 
Uayt V, Kountze, 1182. 

V. Lynch, 73. 

i\ Macon, 204. 

V. Quint, 1769. 

V. Seeley, 1586, 1587, 1596, 1662. 

V. Thompson, 317, 395. 

V, Wilkinson, 1204. 
Hubbard v. Chapin, 7585, 808. 

17. Ezch. Bank, 867. 

17. Gumey, 1329, 1338. 

17. Harrison, 62a. 

17. Jackson, 1237, 1242. 

17. ManhatUn Tr. Co., 1709. 

V. Matthews, 222, 592, 861, 998, 
999, 999a. 

17. Moseley, 41. 

17. Rankin, 850. 

17. Todd, 674. 

17. Town of Lyndon, 422. 

17. Troy, 926. 

17. University Bank, 1202. 

17. Williams, 800a, 1402. 
Hubbell 17. Flint, 200, 1250. 
Hubbersty 17. Ward, 1729, 1733. 



liXxii 



TAKLif bP CASlES'; 



References a/re te 
paragraphe marked f . 



Hubble r/Togartie, 108. 

r. Morristown Land Co., 879, 898. 
Hubbly r. Brown, 1305. 
Huber 17. Steiner, 884. 
Hubert v. Grady, 86. 
Hubner v. RichardBon, 206. 
Huckins v. Hunt, 194. 
Hudson V. Beet, 797. 

V. Equitable Mtg. Co., 812. 

17. Groodwin, 1195. 
- V. Matthews, 616. 

r. Wolcott, 722, 1147. 
Hudson Bros. Com. Co. r. Glencoe 

Sand & Gravel Co., 1310. 
Huedekoper t^. Buchanan County, 1553. 
Hueske 17. Broussard, 710. 
Huey 17. Macon County, 1614. 
Huff 17. Slife, 1326, 1769. 

r. Wagner, 768. 
Huffaker r. Nat. Bank, 656, 946. 
Huffman i?. Walker, 1221. 
Hughes 17. Bowen, 1147, 1148. 

17. Fisher, 79, 508. 

17. Heyraan, 1786, 1787, 1788. 

17. Kiddell, 668. 

17. Large. 726; 1437. 

V. Nelson, 260, 743, 744. 

17. Wheeler, 108, 1274. 
Hughes Co. (7. Livingstone, 43, 1537, 

1540, 1542. 
Hughitt 17. Hayes. 1425. 

17. Johnson, 54a, 61. 
Hulbert 17. Douglas, 7956. 
Hulbrook r. N. J. Zinc Co., 1708^ 

170817. 
Hulings 1*. Hulings Lumber Co., 1643. 
Hull 17. Blake, 800, 800a. 

r. Conover, 574, 741, 1197. 

17. Myers, 89, 9956. 
Hullhorst r. Schamer, 177. 
Hulme 17. Tenant, 247. 

«?. Turner, 207. 
Humbert 17. Larson, 203. 
Humble 17. Curtis, 823, 824. 

17. Mitchell, 1708a. 
Humboldt Township 17. Long, 1542. 
Hume 17. Mazelin, 1458a. 

17. Watt, 999. 
Humfreville, Matter of, 16186. 
Hummel v. First Nat. Bank, 1612a. 
Humphrey 17. Beckwith, 65. 

r. Hitt, 1311, 1339. 
Humphreys r. Bicknell, 1586, 1587, 
1596. 

17. Chastain, 370a, 683. 

17. Clement, 1247. 

V. Guillow, 1390, 1402. 

17. Nat. Bank, 1289a. 

r. Sutcliffe, 1209. 
Humphreyville r. Culver, 1181a, 1198. 
Humphries 17. Niz, 32. 



HungerfoVd i\ O'Brien, 1786. 
Hunleth r. Leahy, 725, 725a, 7266. 
Hunt V. Adams, 74, 94, 1332, 1404, 
1763. 

17. Aldrich, 1190. 

V, Bell, 196. 

17. Divine, 56, 1707. 

17. Gray, 1413. 

V. Hall, 918. 

17. Higman, 1262. 

17. Johnson, 891. 

17. Listenberger, 298, 300, 322. 

17. Massey, 230. 

17. Maybee, 586, 656^ 1144. 

V. Memphis Gas Light Co., 382, 
385. 

17. Miss. Central E. Co., 1733. 

17. Rumsey, 206. 

17. Sanford, 776, 778. 

V. Standart, 879, 898, 899, 901. 

17. Stewart, 1218. 

17. Wadleigh, 1172. 

17. Williams, 174. 
Hunter, Ex parte, 1612. 

17. Blodgett, 136. 

17. Clark, 62a, 834. 

17. Cobb, 126. 

17. Fitzmaurice, 1354. 

17. Hempstead, 694. 

17. Hook, 1103, 1149. 

€7. Ingraham, 514. 

17. Jeffrey, 736. 

17. Jett, 1320. 

17. Robertson, 1215a. 

17. Van Bomhorst, 969. 

17. Wilson, 174. 

17. Wood, 1458. 
Huntington 17. Branch Bank, 147, 843. 

17. Finch, 1390, 1420. 

17. Harvey, 1147, 1304. 

17. Wellington, 1763. 
Huntley 17. Sanderson, 1045. 
Hunt's Appeal, 1699. 
Huntzinger v. Jones, 1646. 
Huot 17. Elv, 800a. 
Hurd 17. Hall, 732, 733. 

17. Little, 1328. 

t\ St. Alban, 422a. 

17. Spencer, 1311. 
Hurlbut 17. Hall, 1385, 1410, 1411» 

1417. 
Hurry 17. Kline, 798. 
Hurst 17. Chambers, 731a. 

In re, 1260, 1267. 
Hurt 17. Ford, 856. 

17. McClellan, 1115. 

17. U. S. Trust Co., 793a. 
Husband 17. Epling, 41. 
Huse 17. Alexander, 1266. 

17. Hamblin, 56, 57, 1706. 
Husk 17. Smith, 370. 



^' R€ference8 are to 
paragraphs marked S. 



TA'BLB OF CASES. 



1 all • 

Ixxxiii 



« I 



Hussey v. Freeman, 6, 1106. 

V, Hill, 834. 

p. Jaeob, 6, 521, 525. 

V, Sibley, 731a, 734. 

V. Winslow, 38, 78. »- 

Huston V, Noble, 1245. 

V. Tyler, 7316, 740a. 

V. Weber, 1276. 

V, Young, 83, 630. 
HntchingB t>. Da CdsU, 1631. 

V, ^rans, 800o. 

t?. Olcutt, 1260, 1279a. 
Hutchina r. State Bank, 1708a. 
Hutchinson f. Benedict, 834. 

i?.* Bogg, 177, 815. 

17. Brown, 68, 855. 

V. Crane, 1182. • 

V. Crutcher, 1)19. 

V, Domin, 196. 

V. Manhattan Co., 3406. 

V, McCann, 766. 

r. Simon, 668. 

r. Woodwell, 1260. 
Hutchinson k WiUon v. Powell, 356, 

1109. 
Huttig, etc., Co. V. Gough, 366, 669a. 
Hutton V, Eyre, 1291. 
Huyck r. Meador, 38, 39« 
Hyde v. First Nat. Bank, 841, 344. 

V. Franklin County, 422, 427, 435. 

17. Goodnow, 867, 868, 879, 899. 

«. Hazel, 725. 

V. Kitchen, 24a. 

9. Page, 303, 305. 

r. Planters' Bank, 341. 
' 17. Price, 243. 

17. Stone, 1159. 
Hyde & Leather Nat. Bank p. Alex- 
ander, 8155. 
Hyiand v. Bohn Mfg. Co., 1318. 

17. Blodgett, 55. 

V. Habich, 1789. 
Hyman 17. Kain, 226. 
Hymes v. Weed, 358a. 
Hyne p. Dowdney, 40. 
Hypes P. Griffin, 305, 308a, 405, 418. 
Hyslop P. Clark, 204. 

p. Jones, 1003. 

I. 

Ide p. Ingraham, 374. 

Iglehart p. Moore, 800a. 

Ihl p. Bank of St. Joseph, 1612, 1612a. 

Ihmsen i?.^Negley, 357-. 

Illinois Cent. R. Co. p. Owens, 1732. 

Illinois Conference p. Plugge, 1191, 

1195. 
Ilsley p. Jones, 562, 564. 

p. Stubbs, 173, 1730a. 
Imboden r. Perrine, 1644. 
Importers' Bank p. Littell, 764. 



Importers ft Tr. 'Nat. Banlc p. Shaw, 

•• 1632. •"• *' • •"• 

Indiana, etc., Bank p. Colgate, 1731, 
1/34. 

p. Wackerly, 860. ^' 

Indiana, etc., K. Co. p. Davis, 424. . 

17. Sprague, 1506a. 
Indiana Nat. Bank p. Holtzclaw, 809. 
Indiana K Co. P. Sprague, 150Ca. 
Indian Head Nat. Bank p. Clark, 284, 

790. 
Indig P. Nat. City Bank, 326a, 327, 

1599a. 
Industrial Tr. Co. p. Weakley, 1587, 

1590. 
Ingalls p. Lee, 669, 674, 761, 766. 
Ingels p. Sutliff, 1339. 
Ingham p. Dudley, 59. 

p. Primrose, 842a. 
IngersoU P. Long, 899. 
Ingder v. Riley, 725a. 
Ingraham p. Gibbs, 114. 
Ingram p. Forster, 492. 
Inhabitants v. Weir, 422. 
Innes v. Munro, 159. 

p. Stephenson, 1612. 
In re Estate of Goddard, 557, 567, 568. 
In re Estate of J. Wagner, 1200. 
Insurance Co. p. Bruce, 1537. 

17. Burkett, 305. 

17. Chicago ft Alton Ry. Co., 1741. 

17. Owens, 816, 177. 

p. Wilson, 643, 644, 950, 959, 960, 
961, 991, 1005, 1039, 1057, 
1151. 
Insurance Co. of North America p. 

Martin, 1215. 
International Bank p. German Bank, 

1706a. 
Iowa Co. 17. Foster, 1266. 
Iowa Loan ft Tr. Co. p. Holderbaum, 

262. 
Iowa Valley State Bank p. Sigstad, 

694, 1092. 
Iredell i?. Wasson, 717. 
Ireland p. Evans, 842a. 

p. Kip, 1014, 1016. 
Irish p. Cutter, 715. 

p. Nutting, 26. 

17. Webster, 443. 
Iron City Nat Bank p. Peyton ft Co., 

1654a, 1655, 1655a, 1656, 1657. 
Iron Mine v, Negan, 812. 
Iron Mt R. Co. p. Knight, 1729. 
Iron Works p. Paddocks, 53, 371a, 

709. 
Irvin P. earner, 1281. 

17. Maury, 6. 

17. Reeves Pulley Co., 341. 

p. Villiar, 195a. 
1 Irvine <;. Adams, 1317, 1338. 



Ixxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs fMwked S. 



Irvine v, Lowiy, 66. 

Irving Bank v. Wetherald, 135, 493, 

1608, 1610a, 1621, 1655a. 
Irving Nat. Bank v. Alley, 136. 
Irwin V. Brown, 31. 

V, Planters' Bank, 1479. 
Isaac V. Daniel, 1319. 
Isbell V. Lewis, 1017, 1163. 
Isbery v. Bowden, 1429. 
Iselin V. Rowlands, 698d. 
Iser V. Cohen, 710. 
Isham V. McClure, 1106. 

V. O'Brien, 1104. 

V. Post, 795a. 
Isnard v. Towes, 1405. 
Israel v, Douglas, 23. 

V. Gale, 790. 

17. Israel, 36. 
Isaacs V. Cohen, 791, 815. 
Ives V, Bosley, 710, 713a. 

t7. Farmers' Bank, 142, 146. 
Iveson, Ex parte, 56. 
Ivory f>. Bank of Missouri, 1572. 

r. Bank of SUte, 327, 1574. 

17. Michael, 142, 1385, 1408. 

J. 

Jaccard 17. Anderson, 1094, 1095a. 
Jack t\ Morrison, 713«. 
Jacks t\ Darrin, 1049, 1105, 1473, 
1596. 

17. Moore, 1425. 

17. Nichols, 923. 
Jackson 17. Adams, 1219. 

17. Am. Mtg. Co., 923. 

17. Bank, 294, 574. 

17. Boyles, 1399. 

17. Brown, 38'^, 1272, 1273. 

17. City Nat. Bank, 195a, 200. 

17. Claw, 398. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 793, 793a. 

17. Gumaer, 213. 

17. Henderson, 622. 

17. Hudson, 98, 485. 

17. Jackson, 162, 1471, 1479. 

17. King, 208. 

17. Love, 573, 576, 812. 

17. Mclnnis, 588. 

17. Newton, 598. 

17. Packer, 660, 1217. 

17. Parks, 241. 

17. Phillips, 1219. 

17. Pigot, 490, 491. 

17. Richards, 1035, 1083, 1172. 

17. Sell, 98, 100. 

17. Union Bank, 341. 

17. Van Dusen, 208. 

17. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 14966, 
1501. 

17. Walker, 196. 

17. West, 1181a. 



Jackson t\ Wood, Exrx., 1335. 

17. Yendes, 1785. 

17. Y. & C. R. Co., 1511. 
Jackson Bank v. Irons, 1092a, 1321, 

1778. 
Jackson County r. Hall, 1491, 14915. 
Jacobs 17. Ballenger, 1252. 

17. Benson, 100. 

17. Gibson, 6886, 692, 1092. 

17. Gilreath, 1401, 1402. 

17. Hart, 1376, 1404. 

17. Maloney, 264. 

V, Mitchell, 156. 

17. Town, 1017. 
Jacobs Pharmacy Co. 17. Trust Co., 

386. 
Jacoby t7. Ross, 693. 
Jacoby & Co. i7. Payson, 293. 
Jacquin 17. Warren, 36, 119. 
Jaffray i7. Brown, 713e. 

17. Crane, 13176. 

17. Davis, 1289. 

17. Dennis, 919. 

17. Krauss, 713e. 
Jagger Iron Co. 17. Walker, 1266a, 

1266c. 
James, Matter of, 26, 288. 

17. Badger, 1327. 

17. Catherwood, 913, 914. 

17. Dalvey, 1398. 

17. Johnson, 1433, 1491a. 

17. Rogers, 78. 

17. Taylor, 250. 

17. Yaeger, 782. 

t\ Wade, 1060, 1070, 1147. 
James A, Harveston t*. Dalbery, 857. 
Jameson t7. Swinton, 601, 987, 990, 

1038, 1044. 
Janey r. Field, 246. 
Janin 17. Bank, 1654a, 1655. 
Janis r. Roetgen, 185. 
Jansen 17. Paxton, 703a. 

17. Thomas, 617. 
January r. Goodman, 112. 
Jaqua 17. Montgomery, 862. 
Jarrolt 17. Stratton, 1296. 
Jarrolt r. Moberly, 16366. 
Jarvis v. Garnett, 636. 

V. Manhattan Beach Co., 775, 
1708. 

17. Rogers, 1708. 

17. St. Croix Mfg. Co., 1033. 

17. Wilkins, 40. 

r. Wilson, 36, 110, 496, 604, 632, 
534. 
Jasper Co. 17. fiallou, 1537. 
Jasper Tr. Co. 17. Railroad Co., 1750a. 
Jaycox f. Trembly, 183. 
Jefferson County 17. Railroad Co., 189. 
Jefferson County Bank 17. Chapman, 

1672a, 1690. 



References are to 
pamifrtipha marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxv 



Jeffenonville v. Patterson, 1514. 

Jeffries v. Austin, 174. 

Jefts V, York, 307. 

Jenett f. West Somerville Co-op. 

Bank, 382. 
Jenkins v, Bass, 94. 

1?. Brown, 1734a. 

17. Daniels, 1328. 

V. Hart, 32. 

r. Hutchinson, 307, 485. 

V. Jones, 769a. 

9. Morris, 362. 

9. Phillips, 262. 

v. R^rnotds, 1764. 

9. Shaub, 824. 

r. Shermans, 271, 1181a, 1192. 

17. Shinn, 1230. 

17. Temples, 196. 

v. Wilkerson, 664a. 
Jenks 17. Barr, 1289. 

r. Doylesburg, 656. 
Jennera r. Howard, 214. 
Jenness r. Cutler, 1317&. 
Jenney r. Hearle, 50. 
Jennings v. First Nat. Bank, 41. 

r. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 1740a. 

r. Keyille, 245. 

17. Roberts, 979, 989. 

V, Thomas, 710, 713e, 716. 

F. Todd, 775, 796, 860. 
Jennison r. Parker, 826, 1276. 

17. Stafford, 827. 
Jenys v. Fawler, 533. 
Jerome €. Commissioners, 427. 
Jersey City Say. Bank v. Bank, 783. 
Jeune 17. Ward, 499a, 500, 682. 
Jewell 17. Parr, 1206. 

17. Wright, 868, 908, 924. 
Jewitt V. Smith, 261. 
Johannessen v, Monroe, 83 lo, 1790. 
John r. City Nat. Bank, 1016, 1118. 

17. Farmers' Bank, 93. 

r. Selma Bank, 1016. 
Johnes v. Phoenix Bank, 234. 
Johns 17. John 1708a. 

r. Wilson, 8345. 
Johnson, Ew parte, 1172. 

17. Bank, 326a. 

r. Bank of Fullerton, 933. 

V. Bank of United SUtes, 1395. 

r. Barney, 1701, 1703. 

r. Bentley, 1565. 

V. Berlizheimer, 3705. 

V. Blasdale, 147. 

p. Brown, 959, 1005a, 1039. 

V, Butler, 777a. 

17. Carpenter, 748, 854. 

r. Chadwell, 211. 

17. aark, 1734a. 

V. Cleaves, 1268. 

17. Cobb, 769a, 812. 



Johnson 17. Collins, 555, 558, 559. 

17. Conklin, 93. 

17. County of Stark, 1496, 1497, 
1512a. 

17. Crossland, 62a. 

17. Dooley, 56, 1245. 

17. Johnson 17. Dooley, 56, 1245. 

17. Eaton, 63. 

17. First Nat Bank, 1364, 1657. 

17. Frisbie, 54. 

17. Gilbert, 739a, 1763. 

17. Glover, 717. 

17. Haith, 1175. 

17. Hanover Nat. Bank, 769a. 

V. Heaffan, 150, 154, 1397. 

17. Henderson, 56. 

17. HoUingsworth, 1192. 

17. Johnson, 834, 1250, 1403. 

17. Josey, 728. 

17. Kennion, 1237. 

17. Kent, 1429. 

17. Lane's Trustees, 71. 

17. Lasker Assn., 207. 

17. Lockhart, 1229. 

17. Mangum, 680. 

17. Martinus, 717. 

17. McMurray, 812, 815, 810. 

17. Meeker, 198, 808. 

17. Mitchell, 663a, 694, 696, 698, 
1784. 

17. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 799. 

17. Offut, 116. 

17. Parker, 1092a. 

r. Parker Sav. Bank, d26a. 

17. Parsons, 1005. 

17. Ramsey, 704, 717, 1093. 

17. Readwine, 183a. 

17. Realty Co., 7955. 

r. Searcy, 1094. 

17. Smith, 307, 403. 

17. Stark, 663. 

17. Stark County, 317, 1497, 1500, 
1509, 1511, 1512, 1514, 1524. 

17. Thayer, 21. 

17. Titus, 202. 

17. Underbill, 17085. 

17. Vickers, 834. 

17. Way, 769, 775. 

17. Weed, 1272. 

17. Willard, 815. 

17. Wright, 1652. 

17. Brinkman Com. Co., 1623. 
Johnson, etc.. Bank r. Lane, 669, 929, 

1094. 
Johnson School Tp. 17. Citizens' Bank, 

38, 403. 
Johnston 17. Allen, 196. 

17. Barills, 1260. 

17. Commercial Bank, 633, 1226. 

17. Laflin, 17085, 1708^. 

17. McDonald, 713, 1760. 



Ixxxvi 



TABLE '6F CASEfc 



References are to 
paragr€tph8 marked §. 



•■ • 



Johnston V. Speer, 62. "" 

Johnston Harrester Go. «.* Oletifb, 62. 

17. McLean, 142, 1485:., 
Joliffe V, Albee, 719. 

V. Ashford, 1769tf. 

V. Higgins, 161. 
Jones 17. iBafebitt, 1222. 

V, Bacon, 1763. • ' 

t7. Bank of Iowa, 952. 

17. Bangs, 139, 1385. 

17. BerryhiH, *790. * 

17. Broadhurst, J237, J23p, 1240. 

17. Brown, 88, 13l7o. 

17. Burden, 819. 

17. Chesborough, 1612a. 

17. Crostwaite, 1306a. 

l?.^Pajcl^ p3, 2?7, 293, 535, 636. 

V, De'yer, 24. 

Ex parte, 22. 

17. Fales, 55, 56, 150, 154; 616, 
658, 1048, 1383, 1410, 1473, 
1478, 148i;' 

17. Fort, 9r6, 1229, 

17. Goodwin, 713o. 

V. Uanna, 166; 

i?...HeiUger, 1600, _ ^ . 

17. Hibbert, 756. 
^. €.. Hook, 884. 

17. Hurst, 1282. 

17. Ireland, 1401. 

17. Jones,^ 182, 1218, 1251a^ . 

17. Kilbreth, 326. 

17. Lane, 1199. 

17. 'Lathrop,- 312. 

17. Le. Tombe, 439. 

17. Lewis, 1015, 1022. 

17. Littledale, 740a. 

17. Mars, 288. 

17. Middleton, 611, 996. 

17. Nellis, 663. . 

17. Nicholl, 1215. 

17. CBrieii, 1158. 

17. Piening, U485. 

17. Raditz, 62. 

17. Rhea, 81a, 156. 

17. Rittenhouse, 183. 

r. Roberts, 1100. 

17. Ryde, 713a, 1675. 

17. Savage, 127,. 1149, 1159. 

17. Shaw, 68, 80, 81a. 

17. Shelbyville Ins. Co., 142. 

r. Simpsdn, ^3. 

9. Smith, 62a. 

17. Steamboat, 1428, 

17. Steele, 55. 

17. Strawhan, 1260. 

17. Thayer, 1758. 
^p. Tlxooi, 370ft,. 683. 

V. Thorntpn, 370. ^ 

17. Turnoiir, 1218. 

17. Wanlell, 1053;' ' 



" ..1 



.* 



Jones v. NVeakley,* '24. ' 

17. Willson, 824i - -^ 

,17. Wi^en, 780. 803. 
Jon^s County v. Board of E^uc.,' '757. 
Jordaine r. Lashbrooke, 14, 1217. 
Jordan v. Ackerman, 731. 

17. Bell, 1458. ' • 

17. Dobbins, 177d». ' * 

17. Grover, 815. 

17. Jordan, 68, 864. 

17. Long, 669. 

17. Tarkington, 634. 

1\ Tate, 43. 

17. Thomas, 1389. 

17. Wheden, 472. 
. 17. Whittier, 741, 748. 
Joselyn 17. Smith, 1215a. 
Joseph V. Nat. Bank, 1'42." 

V. Salomon*, 9; 679, 995. ' • ' 
Joslin V, Miller, 922. 
Josselyn t?. Lacier, 60, 161. 
Jossey V. Ruskin, 664'.' 
Journal Printing Co. t7.* Maxwell, 769o, 

810. 
Jourolmon r. Ewing, 1458. 
Joy 17. Diefendorf, 750, 789. 
Joyce 17. Cockrill, 68, B54, 856. 
Judah 17. Harris, '66. 
Judd 17.- Martin, 186. 

17. Small, 1341. 

17. Smith, 1586. 
Judge 17. Vogel, 834. 
Judson 17. Corcoran; 747. - * 

Judy t7. Londerman, 827. - 

Juillard v, Chaffee, 68a, dla. 
Julian 17. Calkins, 724a. * • 

17. Shortbrook, 608, 509. 
Jumper t7. Com. Bank, 1700, 1704. 
Junction R. Co. v, Ashland Bank, 674. 

!?. Cleneay, 800a. 
Junge 17. Bowman, 305. 
Jungens v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 1221. 
Junffk 17. Holbrook, 1309. 
Juniata Bank v. Hale, 591, 972, 988, 

1176, 1177. 
Jury V. Barker, 108. 
Justh 17. Holliday, 198a. 

17. Nat. Bank of the Common- 
wealth, 366. 

K. 

Kagel 17. Totten, 851. 
Kahn t7. Overstolz, 366. 

r. Walton, 195a, 1606a. 
Kahnweiler 17. Anderson, 20, 21. 
Kain v. Bare, 195a, 205. 
Kaiser 17. First Nat. Bank, 391. 

17. Hodopp, 186. 
. 17. Latimer, 1713. , 

ICalamazoo Nat. Bank r. Clark, 151, 

847. 



References are to 
paragrapha marked |. 



TASL'B OF CASSS. 



Ixxzvii 



KaminBkT «^. Sehefer, &32&. 
Kamm v. Holland, 708, 708a>'71ll. 
Kampman v. McComuok, 56, 164, 741. 
Kampmann r. Williams, 603, 927. 
Kanaga r. Taylor, 867. 
Kankapee Coal Co. r. Crane Bros'. 

Mfg. Co., 711, 713c. ' ' 

Kansas r. Board of County Comrs. of 

Wichita County, 800a. 
Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Iv^ Leaf 

Coal Co., 289. 
Kansas Loan Tr. Co. r. Gill, 834. - 
Kasson v. Smith, 789, 794. 
Kastner r. Prihilinski, 847. 
Katzenberger r. Aberdeen, 1561. 
Kaufman v. Bafri^er,- -497, 497a.' 

V. Robey, 802.. - 
Kavanaugh v. Bank, 336, 1170, 14d7, 

1566, 1651, 16«2. ' 
Kay V. Allan^ 1785&. 

V. Brookman, 112. 

r. Duchesse de Peinne, 245. 
Kayser r. Hull, 716. 
Kealing v. Vansickle, 7130< 
Kearby r. Hopkins, 183. 
Kearney v. King, 11, 1580. 

r. W. Granada Min. Co., 113. 

V. Whitehead, 164. 
Kearslake r. Morgan, 1272. 
Kearsley v. Cole, 1295, 1322. 
Keck r. Sedalia Brewing Co., 303. 

t\ State ew rel. Nat. Cash Register, 
1260. 
Keckley r. Union Bank, 207. 
Kedey v. Petty, 1266. 
Keefe v. Voice, 196. 
Keel V. Larkm, 1260. 
Keeler v. Alexander, 1181a, 1191, 1194. 

r. Bartine, 1290. 

V. Com. Printing Co., 722. 

V. Hollweg, 1311. 
Keen r. Davis, 411. 
Keene v. Beard, 1567, 1587, 1638, 1652, 
1653. 

V. Weeks, 1411. 
Keith 9. Clark, 447. 

17. Jones, 56. 
Keith,'Davis A, Co. v. Blanton, 834. 
Keithsburg v. Frick, 317, 1545, 1557. 
Kellam r. McKoon, 940. 
Keller v. Hicks, 429. 

V. Singleton, 1259. 

V. W^eeks, 422. 
Kellerman r. Kansas City R. Co., 1729, 

1729a, 1735. 
Kelley v, Bronson, 50. 

V. Brown, 1149, 1584. 

r. Greenough, 479, 570k 

V. Mayor of Brooklyn, 420, 427, 
430, 433, 434, 1520. 

V, Henuuingway, 46. 



IKeUey i7. Ptt^nix 17at: Bas/k, 1509a. 

r. .Seriptnrft^. 17840. \' i./i . 

V. Whitney, 51, 700, 748, 775, 787, 
797, 834. • 

Kellogg V, Budlong, 1687. 

V. Curtis, 775, 780, 814, 815a, 
819. 

V. Douglass, 1781. 

V. Dunn, 713e, 715. 

V. Fancher, 800, 800a, 832. 

V. French, 800, 801. 

V. Schnaake, 725a, 782. 

V. Steiner, 849. 
Kelly V. Burroughs, 703. • 

V. Forty-second St. R. Co., 1229. 

p. Keese, 1219. 

V, Milan, 1532. 

V. Staed, 724, 1238. 
Kelman v, Calhoun, 814, 815. 
Kelmer v, Krgllick, 834. 
Kelsey v. Chamberlain, 80. 

V. Hibbs, 76. 
Kelso r. Frye, 152. 
Kelty V, Bank, 1590. 
Kemble v. Christian, 830. 

r. Logan, 1227. 

r. Lull, 517, 534. 

V, Mills, 1084, 1596. 
Kembrough «. Lane, 204. 
Kemp p. Balls, 1235. 

V. Claus, 62. 

r. Falk, 1780. 

V, Finden, 1341. 
Kempner v. Corner, 254, 681, 781a. 

V. Jordan, 698d. 
Kendall r. £q. Life Ass. Co., 832a. 

V. Galvin, 88, 108. 

V. Parker, 62, 664. 

V. Porter, 1458a. 

V. Roberson, 197, 198. 
Kendrick v. Campbell, 551. 

V. Forney, 1342. 

V. Lomax, 1266, 1329, 1468. 
Kennan v. Mash, 485. 
Kennard r. Cass Co., 15096, 1510. 

V. Knott, 1319. 
Kennedy v, Bibbler, 1741. 

V, Geddes, 551, 552, 556, 1045. 

V, Goodman, 174. 

V. Graham, Admr, 74. 

V. Knight, 894. 

f>. Lancaster County Bank, 1418. 

r. Murdick, 196. 

17. Rosier, 1277a. 

17. Thomas, 1209. 
Kenner t7. Creditors, 508, 633. 
Kenney i7. Jefferson County Bank, 

834a. 
Kennicott t7. Supervisors, 1520, 1523, 

1537, 1550. 
Kenningham 17. Bedford, 1317. 



Ixxxviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Kennon v, Bailey, 713a, 995. 

1?. McRae, 611, 1048, 1110, 1148, 
1163, 1195. 
Kenny v. Hinds, 50. 

r. Walker, 164, 810. 
Kent V, Dawson Bank, 341. 

V. Keynolds, 1243. 

i\ Rogers, 1431. 

r. Warner, 1048. 
Kenworthy v. Hopkins, 114. 

V, Sawyer, 241, 243, 676, 1322. 
Kenyon v. Williams, 303, 305. 
Keokuk County State Bank v, Eunice 

Hall, 827, 1310. 
Kephart v. Butcher, 1276. 
Kerharie r. Smith, 748. 
Kernohan v, Durham, 7265. 

V. Mauss, 677, 748, 834. 
Kerrigan v, Rautegan, 24a. 
Kern v. Van Phul, 963, 1093. 
Keman t?. D. & M. Bank, 1352a. 
Kemodle v. Hunt, 203. 
Kerr t?. City of Corry, 1503. 
Kerrick v, Stevens, 1192. 
Kerrison v, Cooke, 1333. 
Kershaw v. Cox, 1395, 1402, 1404. 

V, Ladd, 342, 1590, 1592. 
Kervan v. Townsend, 517. 
Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, 383, 
1530. 

r. Clark, 369a, 3695. 

V. Duncan, 1222, 1491. 

V, Gray, 1779. 

V. Packer, 803, 1222. 
Keuka College v. Ray, 188a. 
Key V, Flint, 790. 

V, Knott, 1671. 
Keyes v. Bank, 324. 

V. FeuBtermaker, 88, 606, 1163. 

17. Mann, 205. 

V. Winter, 1086. 
Keymer r. Lawrie, 326a. 
Keys V. Lardner, 156, 834. 
Keyser v. Pickrell, 1219. 

V, Shepherd, 1199. 
Kidder v. Blake, 204. 

t\ Norris, 1252. 
Kidson v, Dilworth, 717. 
Kieffer v, Ehler, 800a. 
Kiel V. Choate, 669, 703, 704. 
Kierstead r. Rogers, 1194. 
Kiff t\ Weaver, 24. 
Kilgore v, Bulkley, 622, 634, 979a, 
983, 1703. 

V, Dempsey, 922, 923. 
Kilgour t;. Finlayson, 292, 360, 370, 

373. 
Kilkelly v. Martin, 1385. 
Killam v. Schoeps, 59. 
Killian v. Ashley, 713a. 
Killough V. Alford, 1247. 



Kilpatrick r. Home Building Assn., 

1623. 
Kimball v, Bittner, 314. 

V, Bowen, 963. 

V, Bryan, 1074. 

V. Cleveland, 392. 

r. Huntington, 39, 163. 

V. Moir, 62. 
Kimball Co. v, Mellon, 46, 53, 62. 
Kimberly's Appeal, 1266. 
Kimble v. Christian, 852. 
Kimbro v. Bank of Fulton, 1684. 

V. Bullit, 368a, 368. 

V. Holmes, 638. 

V. Lytle, 793a. 
Kinunell t;. Burns, 1458a. 
Kincaid v. Higgins, 44, 80. 
Kinchloe i;. Holmes, 17856. 
Kindlow v. Blakey, 497a. 
Kine v. Beaumont, 1051. 
King 17. Baldwin, 1311, 1339. 

V. Buckley, 983, 986. 

V. Capper, 1708a. 

f7. Crowell, 637, 638, 654, 1036. 

V, Dedham Bank, 1685. 

17. Doolittle, 832. 

17. EUor, 36. 

17. Faber, 358a. 

17. fleece, 1192. 

17. Fleming, 69. 

17. Gillet, 1288. 

17. Gottschalk, 812. 

r. Hamilton, 58. 

17. Harley, 974, 978. 

17. Hoare, 1294, 1296. 

17. Holmes, 638, 654a. 

17. Hourie, 94. 

17. Jamison, 235. 

17. Johnson, 760. 

17. Lambton, 63. 

17. Milsom, 1470. 

17. Morrison, 1294. 

17. Nichols, 777. 

17. Ridge, 753, 763. 

17. Ritchie, 713e. 

17. Sparks, 278. 

17. Summitt, 739a. 

17. Thorn, 262, 263, 268, 270. 
King, Estate of. In re, 1458. 
King & Co., Ltd. 17. Silvers, 1373a. 
Kingman & Co. 17. Cornell, 709, 710, 

711. 
Kingsberry v, Pettis County, 433. 
Kingsbury v. Butler, 88. 
Kingsland 17. Koeppe, 712, 713&, 717, 

719. 
Kingsland 17. Pryor, 827, 832a. 
Kingsley r. Buchanan, 1282. 

17. Evans, 800a. 

17. Robinson, 1082. 
Kingston, Ea parte, 1632a. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Kingston Bank v. Ettinge, 1363. 
Kingston Sav. Bank v. Bosserman, 

1373, 1398. 
Kinkel t;. Harper, 775, 780. 
Kinney tJ. Ford, 67. 

V. Fiinn, 101. 

V. Ueald, 449. 

V. Kruse, 803, 818. 
Kinney & Co. v. Paine, Beer., 654. 
Kinpland Lam' Co. v. Newman, 1021. 
Kinsey v. Ping, 1425. 
Kinsley v. Evans, 800a. 
Kinyon v. Stanton, 1587, 1596. 

V. Wohlford, 769, 837. 
Kip 17. Bank, 336. 
Kirby v. Duke of Marlborough, 1250. 

0. McDonald, 355. 

V. Sessin, 1475. 
Kirk V, Blurton, 361, 362. 

r. Dodge Coifnty Mut. Ins. Co., 52. 

V. Strickwood, 196. 
Kirkham r. Bank of America, 341, 

1261. 
Kirkey's Sons v, Crandle, 342. 
Kirkland v. Benjamin, 196. 

17. Dinsmore, 1729a. 

V. Dryfus, 1259, 1260. 
Kirkland Land & Imp. Co. v. Jones, 

1335. 
Kirkman r. Bank of America, 67. 

V. Benham, 262, 263. 

V. Boston, 719, 720a, 721. 
Kirkpatrick v. Bonsall, 105a. 

V. Hawk, 1311. 

V. McCulIough, 56, 996. 

r. Puryean, 1587. 
Kirkaey v. Bates, 946, 1238. 
Kirkwood v. First Nat. Bank, 170fia, 

1703, 1706. 
Klrsch V, Baum, 36, 50a, 1539. 
Kirshner v. Conklin, 703. 
Kirtland r. Wanzer, 887, 928, 960. 
Kiakadden v. Allen, 43, 713a. 
Kitchen v. Bartsch, 1231. 

r. Londenback, 769a, 775, 777. 

V. Place, 1406. 
Kittle 9. De Lamater, 782. 

V. Wilson, 1317. 
Kittridge v. Stegmier, 1311, 1339, 1396. 
Klaaa (>>m. Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 1741. 
Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 56, 1706. 
Klein v, Bcemstein, 1018. 

V. Buckner, 1191, 1192. 

t?. Currier, 713c, 1760. 

r. Keys, 174. 

V, Long, 1321. 
Kline r. Bank of Tescott, 418, 410. 
Kling V. Irving Nat Bank, 1425. 

r. Kehoe, 717. 
Klinit r. Higgins, 1227. 
Klockenbaum v. Pierson, 979. 



Klopfer V. Levi, 534, 1206. 
Klosterman v. Loose, 405. 

V. Olcott, 1785. 
Knapp V. Alwood, 23. 

V. Cowell, 326a. 

V. Grant, 1560, 1561. 

V. Greene, 1215. 

V. Mayor of Hoboken, 420. 

V. McBride, 369. 
Knapstein v. Tinnette, 65. 
Kmtchbull v. Hallett, 336. 
Knaup, In re, 1490. 
Knaus v. Givens, 354, 369a, 370, 371, 

372a. 
Knickerbocker Ins. Co. f>, Pendleton, 

963, 960, 1054. 
Knight V. Hawkins, 1312. 

V. Hunt, 194. 

V. Jones, 99. 

V, Leigh, 1468a, 1483. 

V. Lord Plymouth, 287. 

V. McReynolds, 49. 

V. Packard, 1217. 

V. Pugh, 165, 814. 

V, St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 1727. 
Knights 17. Putnam, 759. 
Kniil V. Williams, 1394. 
Knisely v. Sampson, 83. 

17. Williams, 1281a. 
Kniss 17. Holbrook, 769a. 
Knobelock v, Germania County Bank, 

802, 1612a. 
Knoblauch 17. Foglesong, 719. 
Knopf 17. Morel, 713a. 
Knott 17. Tidyman, 177, 193, 214, 857. 

17. Venable, 617, 1032. 
Knox 17. Clifford, 70, 827. 

17. Eden Musee Co., 775, 1469, 
1708. 

17. Lee, 1248. 

17. Reedside, 513, 514i 

17. The Niveila, 1729. 
Knox County v. Aspinwall, 317, 1628. 
Knowlton 17. Schultz, 769a. 
Knoxville Nat. Bank 17. Clark, 860, 

1406. 
Koch 17. Howell, 49^. 
Kock 17. Bringer, 1005. 
Koehler 17. Dodge, 726a, 727. 
Koenig 17. Bramlett, 1789. 
Kohlen 17. Smith, 1458a. 
Kohn 17. Collison, 240, 241. 

17. Lewis, 136. 

17. Watkins, 139. 
Konig 17. Bayard, 520, 524, 993. 
Koons V. Davis, 860. 
Koontz V. Central Nat. Bank, 1372. 
Kop 17. Shoutz, 154. 
Kopelke v. Kopelke, 918. 
Korper v. Wood, 374. 
Korkonong v. Burton, 1513, 1516. 



i^p 



TABLE, OF OASES* 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Kost V. Ben4(r> 8^5r , 

Kountz t;. Itei^n^dj, 1412^ }415,, 142^0. 

Kraak v. Fries, l82. ' 

Krakauer v. Chapman, 560, 1790. ^ .-^ 

Kramer t?. Sanford, 1130, JIS^, 1137, 

1139, 1142. 
Krampt's Exr. v. Hate's £^., .17^3. 
Krathwqhl_ t?. Dawson, 869, 
KreiboHm t\ Yancey, 197; • • 
Kreim r. Cummings, 1331. 
Kreiss v. Faron, 203. 
Knieger v, Klinger, 1191. 
Krumbf^tr, t?. Ludeling, 311, 
Kuch I?. Oomett, 573, 815. 
KudaxL t^.-'Winegar, 305. 
Kuhn V. McAllister, 1708a. 
Kuhns r. Bankes, 834. • •' 

V. Gettysburg Nat Bank, 1652. 
Kulb 17. United Sti^tes, 1373, 1405, 

1413. -^ 
Kulenkamp v. Groff, 719, 720. 
Kulp r. Kulp, 1215. 
Kummel v. Germania Say. Bank, 

1711a. 
Kun^c^i p. Elvers, 891,. 898. 
Kuntz V. tempel, 627, 710. 
Kuph v. Weston, 1021. 
Kuriger r. Joest, 1353. 
Kurz r. Halbrook, 725a. 
Kyle V. Bostick, 1317. 

V, Chattahoochee Nat. Bank, 18. 

V. Green, 1133, 1135. - 

r. Thompsop,. 576, , , 
Kyner v. Showier, 713.' 

-^'■* %»J^— • 4 ^1 ***** 

Li. 

Lachner Broi. V. Adatns' Express G<r., 

Lackey t\ Boruff, 183. . 

Laclede Bank v. Schuler, 1630a, 1643. 

Lacoste v, QaEper* 1079. i • . .^ 

Lacy V. Holbrook, 56. 

p - ' t?. -Kinnaston, 1291. 

17. Woolcati 369a. 
I^dd 17. ^ker, 94. 

17. Kenney, 1153. 

V. Rogers, 141. . .-. • 

La Due i?. First Nat. Bank, 725, 783a. 
Lafayette Banker. St. Louis Stoneware 
Co., 386, 1486, 1500. 

17. Ringel. 66, 1703. 

V. State Bank, 393. 
Lafitte 17. Slatter, 1076. • - 
Laflin & Rand Powder Co. r. «SinB- 

hei^l^r. .174^ 414. . „ 

Lafort'i?! Carpenter, 356. 
Lafourche Transportation Co. t?. Pugh, 

•281, 293, 294."- 
Lagow 17. Badollet, 1281a. 
Lagrue 17. WoodriUL 55?, . , . , . 
Lahay 17. City Nat. Bank, 1618. 



Laidley 17, Bright, 32.^ 
LailP«vt?-y^.arcUy, 109, 502, 1465. 

17. Header, 1228. 
Laird 17. Stftte, 57. 
Lake r. Haynes, 669a. ^ 

V, Reed, 776. 

17. Stetson, 715. ' 

17. Trustee, 233, 422. 

If. Tysen,' 7l. 
Lake County i7. Graham, 1634, 1537v 

1543a. 
Lake Shore Nat. Bank t7. Colliery po.. 

Lake Side Land Co. i?. Dromgoole, 

1195. 
Lamar i7. Brown, 1386. 
Lamb 17. Burke, 812. 

17. Camden & C^., 1740a. 

17. Cecil, 392. 

17. Durant, 1737. 

17. Moberly, 1468a, 1483. 

17.' Morris, 3265. 

17. Story, 53. 
Lambarde 17. Older, 1432. 
Lambe v. Commonwealth, 448. , 

Lambert, Ex parte, 1265. 

17. Clewly* 185. 

V. Ghiselin, 1050, 1055, 1058a, 
1116, 1335. 

17. Heath, 734. 

17. Jones, 18, 913, 914. 

17. Sandford, 1335a. 
Lamine 17. jJorrell, 1372&. 
Lamkin v. Edgerly, 1018. 
Lammers f ». $ewi^g Macl^. Co;, 1401. 
Lamon v. French^ 514. 
Lamorieux v. Hewit, 1782, 1784. -' 
l^mpkin 47. Nye,. 620. . r •. .f 

Lampton t\ Haggard, 56. 
Lam8on'i7. Beard, ~392, 775. 

17. First Nat. Bank, (1325. . 
Lamwersick v. Boehmer, 369. 
Lancaster Nat. Bank i7. Smith, 286a;* 

17. Taylor> 706, 745. , . ., 
, V. Woodward, 1638, 1647. 
Lancasier Couniy Bank 17. Moore« 
210. . ' .. 

17. Smith, 286a. 
Lancaster County Nat. Bank t;. 'Huver, 

3266, 326c, 7796. 
Lancy i7. Clark, 1221. 
Land 17. Oowan, 1428. 
Land Title^ & Tr. Co. v. Bank, 1663. 
Landa 17. Latten Bros., 1731, 1750. 
Landamer i7. Espenhain,- 1198. 

17. Sioux Falls Imp. Co., 810, 
1421a. 
Landon 17. Bryant, 611. - * 

Landrum 17. Trowbridge, 449, 454, 

1162, 1154. 
Landry 17. Stansbury, 1177, 1179. 



Reference* are to 
pamgraphe marked §. 



.CnSLE >OF ^ CASES. 



XCl 



Luie ff.'Bank of West^Tennettei^ 1*66; 
1070, 1119, ,1177. . . 

V. Evans, 775. 

r. Jones, 1251,. 1272i / . 

r. Krekle, 93, 136, 139. 
- • V. Bailroad Co., 1508. ' * 

V. Salter, 94. . . , . 

r. Schlemmer, 769a. 

V. Sta<5ey, 704. - ^ - 

•'• .V, 8t0wart,aOQ6,1162, 1165,1190^ 

V. Union Nat. Bank, 8 16. 

Lanfair i7.'^6tifaUBer, 1737. ^ 

Lanfear v. Blossmaa, 775, 11345, 1734o^ 
I^ng V. Gale, 624. 

p. Smyth, 116, 1504. ] 

I^ngan v. Hewitt, 366i ■ • ' ' i 

V. Langan, 80. y 
Langdale «. Trimmer, 992. 
Langdon .f. Hulls, 10^^. 
Lange v. Kohne, 56. 
lADgenberger v. KroegO*, -654(1. 
Longford f7. Varner, 184, 724o,( 726a. . 
LADghome & Scott v. {^gibtn^pn, 15569, 

1557, 1558.' 
Langley t;. Palmer, 649, 650. 
Langston v. Corry, 508. 
Langston v. S. C. R. Co., 1489, 1500, 

1507, 1513, A514. ... • .. 
I^uigt4m V, Qugbes, 200. . . 

r. Lazarus, 540. 
Lanier v. Union Mort., etd., Co., 201, 

203, 20J. 
Lannay r. Wilson, 1183a. 
Lansing v. Caines, 63, 370, 371, 372a, 

374, 3/5. 
Lanuire r, l>orrell, 1372a. 
Lanussa f?. Massicot, 636. 
Lanusse t?. Barker, 916. 
Lapeyre v. Wilks, 680. 
Laplace v. Laplace, 427, 834, 834a. 
Laporte v. Landry, 1163. 
Laprioe v. Bowman, 172. 

r. Cliftov, 775. 
Laiis V. Morrisoni 713d. 
Lame r. Cloud, 1596. 
Lamed r. Burlington, 1525, 1537. 
La Hue r. Gilkyson, 212. 
Larsen^r. preene, 1623, 1027. - ., 
Lary r!* Young, 1104. 
La Salte' Nat. Bank v. Tolu Kock-ft 

Rye Co., 418. 
Lash 17. Egerton, 1252. 
Laster r. Stewart, 247, 249. 
Latham r. Clark, 170. 

V. Flour Mills Co., 94, 400. 

r. Smith, 126. 
Lathrop r. Commercial Bank» 866. 

r. Morriss, 793a. 
Utta 17. Miller, 265. 
Laab r. Paine, 1393. 

r. Hudd, 793a. 



Laubach v.: PmMeU; 192. " ^ 
LaugiBuberger «• Kroeger, 1373a. 
Laughlin v. Marshiill, 56, 1703. 
Lanning, eta, Co. v. Burns, 201. 
Law t7. Brinker, 174a. 

f. Pamell, 1181a, 1192a. 
Lawatsch «. Cooney, 1468a. 
Lawrence r. American Nat.. Bank, 
"^ "-^ 1166, 1369. 

cBassett, 868, 895. . : 

V. Clark, 831c. 

V. Dobyn, 644, 700; • 

V, Dougherty, 55. 

V. Fussell, 692. 

17. Hammond, 1074, 1168. 

V. Langley, 1175. - ' 

V, McC«lmoAt» 1277a>i755. 

t7. Miller, 1116. 

V, N. Y., etc., R. Co., 1732. 

V, Phipps, 41. 

V, Ralston, 1147. 

17. Smith, 1587. 

17. StiQ^ngton Banl^ 339» 7^1. 

17. tucker, 802. 

17. Wright, 261. 
Lawson v. Fanners' Bank, 992» 995, 
1039, 1041, 1043, 1044. 

17. Lawson, 26.- 

Vj, Lorejoy, 230, 234. 

17. Miller, 170, 173. 

17. 8nydeF,*1841. 

17. Sipencer, 156,. 834^ 835. 

17. Sherwood, 1061. 

17. Townes, 17855. 

17. Weston, 771, 1461, 1462, 1503. 
Lawton v. Howe, 733. 
Law's Exr. v, Sutherland, 201. 
Laws V. Rand, 1587. 
Laxton t7. Peat, 1333. 
Lay 17. Austin, 415. 

17. Wissman, 75Z, 758a, 7585, 758c, 
778. 
Lazarus v. Cowie, 725a, 726, 786, 1237. 
Lazell 17. Lazell, 1472, 1475, 1478, 1481. 
Lazier v, Nevin, 1275, 1276. 

17. Horan, 326a, 643, 1230. . 
Lea 17. Branch Bank, 663. 

17. Cassen, 176. 
Leach i7. Buchanan, 497, 533, 1351. 

17. County of Wilson, 427. 

17. Hewitt, 1083, 1113a, 1172. 

17. Hill, 156.. 

17. Nichols, 850. 
Leadbetter v. Farrow, 300, 311, 411: 
Leahy r.' Leahy, 241. - • 
Lean v, Lozardi, 83. 

17. Schutz, 243. . 
Lears 17. Moore, 1218, 1220. 
Leary v. Miller, 217, 1107. 
Leas r. Wells, 1407. • * • 
Leather Mfrs'. Bank i7. Morgan, 1370. 



XCll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Leatherman v, Hecksler, 775. 
Leathers v. Commercial Ins. Co., 1061. 
Leaugue v. Wasing, 1262. 
Leavens v, Thompson, 303. 
Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. Comr. of 
Douglas County, 1548. 

V, County Court, 1559. 
Leavitt i?. Blatchford, 382. 

V. Connecticut Peat Co., 394, 685. 

V. Putnam, 610, 619<i, 699, 724, 
996, 1242. 

V. Simes, 658, 66z, 1051. 

V, Taylor, 177. 
Lebanon Bank v. Mangan, 1705. 
Lebel r. Tucker, 906. 
Lecaan c. Kukman, 714a. 
Lechmore v. Fletcher, 1296. 
Lederer v. Union Sav. Bank, 273, 

284. 
Ledger v. Ewer, 201, 760. 
Ledlie v, Vrooman, 248. 
Le Due V, Moore, 802. 
Ledwick v. McKim, 842, 1498. 
Lee V. Alexander, 1373a. 

17. Balcom, 39. 

t?. Baldwin, 1277a. 

V. Bank, 246. 

». Boyd, 195, 200. 

V, Chillicothe Branch Bank, 698. 

V. Davis, 919. 

t?. Dick, 1755, 1785a. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 358a. 

1?. Green, 1260. 

V. Jilson, 1289, 1330. 

V. Levi, 1319. 

V. Love, 1304. 

V, Muggridge, 249. 

V, Oppenheimer, 1289a. 

V, Percival, 816. 

V. Pile, 719, 749. 

V, Robinson, 16a. 

V. Rogers, 1525. 

V. Selleck, 883, 899, 902, 910. 

V. Smith, 812, 1610, 1611. 

V. Starbird, 1385. 

17. Itirner, 1708. 

V. Wheeler, 256. 

V. Whitney, 796. 

V. Wilcocks, 916, 1454. 

V, Yandell, 1306a. 

V, Zagury, 285. 
Lee Bank v. Spencer, 1109. 
Lee, Fried & Co. v. Brugman, 1312. 
Leech v. Hill, 713d. 
Leedis v, Lancashire, 60, 79, 151. 

t?. Vail, 681. 
Leeper v. Paschal, 1341. 
Lef argue v, Harrison, 560, 1799. 
Le Fevre v. Loyd, 312. 
LefBngwell v. Warren, 1525. 

V. White, 1103. 



Leftly 17. Mills, 572, 616, 926, 939, 

1036, 1208, 1466. 
Legg V. Legg, 254, 891. 

r. Vinal, 933. 
Legge V, Thorpe, 1079. 
Leggett V. Bank of Sing Sing, 1708cf. 

17. Jones, 54a. 

17. Raymond, 1759. 
Legro V, Staples, 21, 53, 1644. 
Lehigh, etc., Coal Co. v. West Superior, 

etc., Co., 68. 
Lehman r. City, 1530, 1531. 

17. Jones, 1144. 

17. Press, 775. 

17. Young, 17 Sid. 
Leightman 17. Kadetska, 70. 
Leighton 17. Bowen, 177. 
Leitch 17. Wells, 800a, 1708^. 
Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 1200. 
Leith 17. Elphiston, 1384. 
Leith Bank Co. 17. Walker's TnisteeSj 

607. 
Leland 17. Famham, 728. 

17. Parriott, 701. 
Lemmon 17. Strong, 1769. 

V. Whitman, 1317. 
Lemon 17. Dean, 112. 
Lenheim t\ Fay, 789. 
Lennig 17. Ralston, 12, 860, 898, 1439. 
Lennon 17. Grauer, 669a, 1357. 
Lenox v. Cook, 1213. 

17. Leverett, 943, 1046. 

17. Prout, 1311. 

17. Roberts, 1036, 1039. 
Lent 17. Padelford, 1785. 
Leonard 17. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 1739, 
1741. 

17. Dougherty, 850. 

17. Gary, 1104. 

17. Hastings, 1107. 

17. Leonard, 213, 1231. 

17. Mason, 73. 

17. Olson, 1144, 1145. 

17. Phillips, 1385, 1398. 

17. Vredenburgh, 1764, 1767. 

17. Walker, 108. 

17. Wilson, 1400. 
Leonhardt 17. Citizens' Bank, 1761, 

1763, 1773. 
Lerch Hardware Co. i7. Columbia Bank, 

815. 
Lerned 17. Johnson, 303. 
Leroux v. Brown, 887. 
Le Roy t7. Beard, 885. 
Lesbo 17. Goode, 1300. 
Leschen 17. Guy, 806a, 1303. 
Lesler r. Rogers, 1377. 
Leslie r. Bassett, 827, 831c. 

17. Hastings, 497, 497a. 

17. Merrill, 800a. 
Lessen t\ Scholze, 1376, 1418. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked S. 



TABL£ OF CASES. 



XCIU 



Lester r. Garland, 626. 

r. Given, 1634, 1637. 

r. Snyder, 1230. 
Lett p. Morris, 16a, 23. 
Leveitzer r. Banking Co., 1417. 
Leverone r. Hildreth, 185. 
Leri r. Mundell, 713e. 
Levins r. Briggs, 62. 
Levy r. Allien, 205. 

r. Du Bose, 80Ua. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 1369. 

r. Gadsby, 762a. 

r. Gilles, 1646. 

r. Bank of U. S., 334, 533, 1655, 
1656. 

V. Cadet, 374. 

r. Drew, 610. 

r. Peters, 1165, 1586, 1634a. 

r. Pyne, 358a. 

r. Wilson, 287. 
Lew r. Peers, 187. 
Lewin r. Brunette, 526. 
Lewis r. Bannister, 858. 

r. Bakewell, 1000. 

r. Brehme, 314, 315, 1156. 

r. Brown, 1309. 

r. Comrs. of Bourbon County, 
1550, 1552. 

r. Cosgrove, 193. 

r. Davidson, 1260. 

r. Dunlap, 719, 720a, 721, 722. 

r. Gompertz, 982, 983. 

V. Hanchman, 1335a. 

V. Harvey. 710. 

r. Hodges, 1351. 

r. international Bank, 1618, 1637. 

V. Jones, 1289a, 1330. 

V. Kramer, 652, 554, 1377. 

V. Lady Parker, 728. 

r. Lee, 243. 

V. Long, 726a, 1338. 

r. McElvin, 1565. 

V, M'Kee, 1745. 

V. Monahan, 704. 

p. Owen, 896. 

V. Pead, 211. 

V. Petayvin, 1471, 1478. 

r. Pima, 1486. 

V. Pinckney. 1425. 

V. Reilly, 370, 372, 683. 

V. The Springville Banking Co., 
1731, 1732. 

V. Tipton, 44, 88. 

V, Traders' Bank, 16a. 

r. Wilson, 32. 
Lewisohn v. Kent, etc., Co., 93, 100. 
Lewiston Falls Bank v. Leonard, 963, 

1029a. 
Leyson v. Davis, 24, 24a. 
Libby p. Mikelborg, 88. 

V. Pierce, 997. 



Lick V, Faulkner, 1247. 

Lickbarrow t?. Mason, 803, 1634, 1727, 

1730, 1733, 1735, 1744. 
Lieber v. Goodrich, 56. 
Liebscher v. Kraus, 400, 418. 
Life Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Education, 1503, 
1537. 

t\ Pendleton, 9, 1074. 
Liggett Spring & Axle Co.'s Appeal, 

334a. 
Liggett r. Weed, 454, 609. 
Light r. Killinger, 1414. 

r. Kingsbury, 610, 996. 

r. Lieninger, 1432. 
Lightbody r. Ontario Bank, 737, 1676a. 
Lightfoot V. Tenant, 200. 
Lightner r. Hill, 640. 
Lilley v. Miller, 1105, 1595, 1596. 

r. Petteway, 1149, 1152. 
Lilly V. Barker, 707. 
Lime Rock Bank r. Macomber, 1190. 
Lime Rock F. & M. I. Co. v. Hewitt, 

53. 
Limerics Bank r. Adams, 775. 
Lincoln r. Bassett, 1328. 

V. Fitch, 1217. 

V. Hinsey, 713c. 

t\ Iron Co., 1537. 

V. Smith, 311. 
Lincoln, etc., Co. r. Allen, 1289. 
Lincoln &. Kennebec Bank r. Hammatt, 
658. 

V. Page, 658. 
Lincoln Nat. Bank t\ Schoen, 368, 369. 
Lindauer r. Fourth Nat. Bank, 339. 
Lindell r. Rokes, 183, 196. 
Linden r. S. F. Bank r. Moore, 898. 
Lindenberger v. Beall, 1021, 1043, 

1051. 
Lindemann r. Farquharson, 186. 
Lindenscbmidt v. Vallee, 833. 
Lindh v, Crowley, 357. 
Lindley v. First Nat. Bank, 496, 560. 

r. Hoffman, 849. 

V. Sullivan, 62a. 
Lindo V. Unsworth, 628, 1041, 1043. 
Lindsay v. Price, 668. 
Lindsey r. McClelland, 66, 1701, 1703, 

1727. 
Llndus V. Bradwell, 252, 681, 1220. 

V. Melrose, 402. 
Lingle v. Cook, 1250, 1251. 
Linkous r. Hale, 962. 
Linn v, Carson, 1284. 
Linnard's Appeal, 827. 
Linnig v. Blummer, 1192. 
Linnigo r. Ralston, 12. 
Linthicum r. Caswell, 1147, 1149, 1165, 

1448. 
Linton v. Nat. Ins. Co., 1458a. 
Linville r. Savage, 8346. 



XCVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked 



Luth t?. Stewart, 1395. 
Lycoming v. Union, 1556. 
Lyman v. Bank of U. S., 1273. 

V. Gedney, 1232. 
Lynch v: Bragg, 1431. 

V, Dodge, 259. 

V, First Nat. Bank, 1607a. 

t?. Goldsmith, 719, 1703. 

V, Hicks, 1400. 

V. Kennedy, 859. 

17. Levy, 713e. 

17. Mead, 664. 

17. Morse, 125. 

V. Reynolds, 1307. 
Lynchburg Nat. Bank t?. Scott, 197, 

807, 808. 
Lynchburg R. Co. v. Dameron, 386, 

1530. 
Lynchburg v. Rochester, etc., Co., 769a. 
Lynde v. Winnebago Co., 1492o, 1497, 

1527a, 1529, 1530, 1537, 1550. 
Lyndonville Nat. Bank v. Fletcher, 

539, 1364, 1369. 
L}Tin Nat. Bank v. Smith, 331, 995a. 
Lyon V, Aiken, 1290. 

17. Ewing, 700, 824. 

17. Holt, 1324. 

17. Lyman, 1219. 

17. Alarshall, 100. 

r. Martin, 61. 
Lyon Co. t*. Savings Bank, 148, 1496, 

1499. 
Lyon, Potter Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 

365, 386, 781a, 812. 
Lyons r. Holmes, 74, 112. 

t7. Miller, 284, 305, 731, 740a, 
1358. 
Lysaght r. Bryant, 667a, 987, 989. 
Lytle r. Wheeler, 172. 

M. 

Maas V. M. K. & T. R. Co., 1502. 
Maber v. Massias, 161. 
Mabie v. Johnson, 775. 
Macaltimer v. Croasdale, 193. 
Macara v. Watson, lo90. 
Macdonald v. Piper, 1470. 
Mace V. Kennedy, 166, 389, 789. 
Macey v. Williams, 24a. 
Macferson «?. Thoytes, 1219. 
Macgregor v. Dover R. Co., 377. 

V. Rhodes, 1357. 
Machado v. Fernandez, 609, 1341. 
Macheath v. Haldimand, 445. 
Machell t7. Kinnear, 1193. 
Mackay r. Fullerton, 1250. 

17. Holland, 859. 

V. Peterson, 851. 

17. St. Mary's Church, 265, 266. 
Mackersy 17. Ramseys, 341. 
Mackey v, Mackey, 1478, 1481. 



Macky v. Craig, 574. 

Macleod v. Snee, 51, 108. 

Maclin v. Critcher, 363. 

Macown v. Atchafalaya Bank, 966. 

Mac Ritchie 17. Johnson, 789a. 

Macungie Sav. Bank r. Hattenstein, 

207. 
Maddox v. Duncan, 669, 6886, 70Sa, 
1090, 1113, li8l. 

17. Graham, 1489. 

17. Lewis, 1318. 

V. Wyman, 154, 8;i5. 
Maddur r. Bevan, 1245. 
Mader v. Cool, 180, 769a. 
Madison Bank r. Graham. 789a. 
Madison, etc., Plankroad Co. t*. Water- 
town Piankroad Co., 384, 386. 
Madison, etc., R. Co. v. Norwich Sav. 

Soc, 3^6. 
Madison Square Bank v. Pierce, 1237. 
Maffatt r. Greene, 786, 790. 
Magee 17. Atkip«»on, 305, 740a. 

V, Badger, 775, 814. 
Magel 17. Milligan, 573. 
Magguire r. Eickmeier, 417, 1410a, 

1417, 1418. 
Magill 17. Manson. 170. 

17. Merrie, 35ba. 
Mjagnon 17. Densmore, 1740cr. 
Magoun r. Walker, 962. 0(10. 
Magruder r. Bank of Georgetown, 
1177. 

17. Peter, 1281. 

t\ Union Bank, 591, 117.3, 1179. 
Mahaiwe Bank r. Douglas^*, 1378, 1387. 
Mahan v. Sherman, 80. 
Mahaska County Bank r. Christ, 156. 
Maher v. Brown, 1644. 

17. Overton, 411. 
Mahier i7. Le Blanc, 630. 
Mahone r. Central Bank, 142. 
Mahoney v. Ashlin, 8. 

V. Fitzpatrick, 45a. 
Mahoney Mining Co. v. Anglo-Califor- 
nia Bank, 1616a, 1630. 
Mahorner r. Hooe, 866. 
Mahurion v. Pearson, 1431. 
Maiden r. Webster, 94. • 

Maier 17. Canovan, 1272, 1300a. 
Maillard 17. Duke of Argyle, 1267. 
Main i\ Casserly, 386. 

17. Hilton, 130. 
Mainer v. &purlock, 979. 
Mainwaring r. Newman, 354. 
Maitland 17. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 775. 

831a, 832a. 
Major V. Symmes, 248. 
Makepeace 17. Harvard College, 154. 

17. Moore, 265. 
Malbon v. Southard, 267, 680. 
Malcomson t7. Malcomson, 485. 



References are to 
jtaragraphs marked f. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XCVll 



Maiden Bank r. Baldwin, 649. 

Male r. Roberts. 874, 892. 

Maledon r. Leflore, 1311, 1326, 1328. 

Mallet V. Thompson, 1296, 1333, 1334. 

Malone v. Keener, 1763. 

Maloney v, Clark, 1663. 

r. Stephens, 222. 
Malott r. Jewett, 1051. 
Malpas i;. Lowenstein, 1262. 
Maltz V. Fletcher, 81a, 203. 
Mammon r. Hartman, 713, 713a. 
Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 1003, 

lOOoo, 1039, 1045, 1212. 
^lanchet v. Cason, 1398. 
Mandeville v. Union Bank, 107. 

r. Welch, 15, 16a, 17, 18, 21, 22, 
450, 451, 1636. 
Manegold r. Dulan, 1183. 
Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Warwick, 222. 
Manhattan Sav. Inst. v. New York 

Exch. Bank, 145, 1528a. 
Maniort v. Roberts, 139, 1194. 
Manistee Nat. Bank r. Seymour, 164. 
Alanley v. Boycott, 720, 1336, 1337, 
1358. 

r. Geagan, 566. 
Mann r. Brown, 1317. 

r. Chandler, 403, 406. 

r. King, 274. 

V. Lant, 167. 

r. Moors, 1023, 1029a. 

r. National Bank, 7796, 812. 

F. Sutton, 32. 
Mannes v. Henry, 1291, 1416. 
Manney t\ Coit, 1109a. 
Manning r. Hayes, 369. 

r. Lyon, 1261, 1264, 1276. 

V. Maroney, 1105. 

r. McClure, 829a, 830, 832. 
Manning, Cushing & Co. v. Alger, 1789. 
>ianrew r. Durham, 1759. 
Mansfield v. Corbin, 185. 

r. Edwards, 720a. 

r. Graham, 710, 1340. 
Manson r. Felton, 259. 
Manton v. Robinson, 333. 
Manufacturers' Bank v. Cont. Nat. 
Bank, 336. 

r. Thompson, 1622o. 
Manufacturers & Traders' Bank v. 

Love, 303, 304. 
Manufacturers' Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 
288a. 

r. Ewell, 7796. 

V. Follctt, 716, 1398. 

F. Swift, 1621. 

V. Thompson, 1191. 
Manufacturers, etc.. Bank v. Winship, 

363. 
Manufacturing Co. v. Railway Co., 



1728. 



Vol. T — vii 



Marble Falls Ferry v. Spitler, 33. 
Marbourg r. Brinknutn, 605. 
March v. Bamet, 1341, 1343. 
Marcy r. Township oif Oswego, 1537. 
Mare r. Charles, 412. 
Margetson v. Aitken, 1167. 
Margleson v. Glynn, 1740. 
Marienthal f. Taylor, 713. 
Marine Bank r. Clements, 394. 

r. Fulton Bank, 325, 334. 

V. Wright, 1734, 17346, 1734c, 
1748. 
Marine & Fire Ins. Bank v. Jauncy, 

18, 20. 
Marine Nat. Bank r. Nat. City Bank, 

540, 669a, 1603, 1661. 
Marion r. Logansport R. Co., 425. 

r. McCullum, 758. 
Marion Bank r. Smith, 657. 
Marion, etc., K. Co. v. Dillon, 428. 

V. Hodge, 425, 482. 
Marion Gravel Road Co. v. Kessinger, 

688. 
Market & Fulton Nat. Bank t?. Sar- 
gent, 142, 143. 
Markey v. Corey, 688c. 
Markham v. Hazen, 487. 
Markle r. Hatfield, 731. 
Marmette r. Tomahawk Common Coun- 
cil, 1524. 
Marmion v. McCielland, 71. 
Marks v. First Nat. Bank, 184, 790, 

832. 
Marr v. Johnson, 987, 1027. 
Marrett v. Equitable Ins. Co., 53. 
Marrigan v. Page, 36, 38. 
Marry atts v. White, 1252. 
Mars V, Mars, 143, 2K4, 573, 812, 1191. 
Marsh v. Chown, 816, 189. 

V, Fulton County, 1538, 1544, 
1545. 

V, Gold, 358a. 

V. Hayford, 1198. 

V. Low, 174. 

». Marshall, 782. 

V, Maxwell, 1053. 

V, Newell, 1199, 1201. 

t?. Pedder, 740, 1271. 

V. Small, 775. 

V Ward 94. 
Marshall v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 188. 

V, Bell, 195. 

V. Clary, 513. 

V. Drescher, 143. 

V. Gougler, 1391. 

V. Marshall, 1260. 

V. Mitchell, 1104, 1110, 1133, 
1135. 

V. Murphy, 403. 

V. Russell, 69. 

V, Ruttin, 243. 



XCVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Marshall r. Silliman, 1557. 
Marshall County v. Cook, 1551. 
Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Milwaukee 

Worsted Mils, 89. 
Marshall Mfg. Co. v, Harkinson, 1251. 
Marshall Nat. Bank r. O'Neal, 386, 

713c, 713d, 774, 775. 
Marson v. Pett, 1378. 

V. Pritchard, 1030, 1124. 
Marston r. Allen, 667, 748, 1468o. 
Martendale v, Follett, 1386, 1411. 
Martin v. Bacon, 507. 

V. Bank, 326&, 1506a, 1513. 

t\ Bank of U. S., 1479, 1695, 1696. 

V, Baugh, 1296. 
t !?. Boure, 6. 

v, Boyd, 713. 

r. Brown, 972. 

r. Chauntry, 60. 

f?. Coles, 719, 1748. 

V. Franklin, 1454. 

17. Funk, 24a. 

17. Grabinski, 114. 

V. Home Bank, 1226, 1278a, 1500, 
1592, 1594. 

V, Ingersoll, 993, 1041, 1043. 

r. Kirk, 370, 373. 

17. Lamb, 1188. 

17. Marshall, 720a. 

17. Martin, 891, 892, 1226, 1612&. 

17. Mayo, 231. 

17. McReynolds, 1183a. 

17. Morgan, 1596, 1630a. 

17. Muncey, 532. 

17. O'Bannon, 748. 

17. Pennock, 1269. 

17. Perqua, 1104. 

17. Shumatte, 41. 

17. Smith, 418, 849a. 

17. Smylle, 851. 

r. Stowe, 46, 108. 

V. Suber, 248. 

17. Trowbridge, 1437. 

17. Wade, 196. 

17. Walton, 3696, 373. 

17. Webb, 392. 

17. Winslow, 607, 609, 1147, 1155. 
Martina 17. Muhlke, 837. 
Martineau r. McCollum, 834. 
Marton i?. Cole, 713, 721. 
Martyn 17. Lamar, 236. 
Marvin 17. McCallum, 63, 1190. 

V. Stone, 1283. 
Marvine 17. Hymers, 385. 
Marye 17. Parsons, 448. 
Maryland Fertilizing Co. r. Newman, 

62. 
Marx & Bliem t7. Luling Co-Operativ« 

Assoc., 1398, 1399, 1785. 
Marzetti r. Williams, 479. 
Maalin's Exrs. 17. Hiltt, 1062, 1290. 



Mason r. Barff, 499a. 

17. Bradley, 1387. 

i\ Burton, 679. 

V. Campbell, 1289, 1289a. 

V. Dousay, 552, 867, 888. 

17. Eldred, 1296. 

17. Franklin, 640, 651. 

17. Frick, 1500. 

17. Hunt, 509, 551. 

17. Hyde, 67. 

17. Jordan, 205. 

17. Mason, 80. 

t\ Metcalf, 40, 41. 

r. Morgan, 240, 254, 681. 

V, Noonan, 728. 

17. Peters, 1327. 

r. Pritchard, 640, 1030, 1124, 
1755, 1772. 

17. Race, 1687. 

r. Rumsey, 362, 488. 

17. Waite, 1469, 1687. 

17. Wickersham, 1300. 
Masonic Bank r. Bangs, 334a. 
Massachusetts Bank t*. Oliver, 1000. 
Massachusetts Iron Co. 17. Hooper. 

1708d. 
Massachusetts Loan & Tr. Co. r. 

Twichell, 664a. 
Mascolo 17. Montesanto, 180, 185. 
Massey v. Building Assoc, 93. 

17. Rayner, 17856. 

t\ Turner, 713a. 
Massie v. Belford, 46. 

r. Byrd, 1215. 
Massman r. Holcher, 855. 
Maspero r. Pedesclaux, 1000, 1001. 
Mast V. Matthews, 59. 
Master r. Miller, 23, 148, 1373, 1373a, 

1376, 1379, 1410. 
Masters v. Ibberson, 803. 
Mater r. Am. Nat. Bank of Denver, 

159, 1407. 
Mather r. Lord Maidstone, 1353, 1371. 
Mathews r. Allen, 1147. 

17. Bloxsome, 95, 143a, 714a. 

V. Haughton, 55. 

V. Haydon, 588. 

r. Poytheress, 775, 814, 1462, 
1463. 

17. Red wine, 102. 

r. Rutherford, 758a. 
Mathews &, Co. r. Dubuque Mattress 

Co., 418. 
Mathewson r. Strafford, 1000. 
Mathey r. Galley, 1096. 
Mathias t*. Barnes, 265. 

r. Kirsch, 175, 790. 
Mathieson r. McMahon, 210. 

17. Sprague, 716. 
Matlock r. Livingston, 199a. 
Matson t7. Alley, 803, 812. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XCIX 



Matter of Dever, 1343. 
Matter of Sznither, 26. 
Matter of Staten I. R. Co., 1626. 
MatteBon v. Ellsworth, 1413. 

V, Morris, 741. 

r. Moulton, 500. 
Matthews r. Bloxsom, 95a, 143a. 

r. Dare, 1275. 
Mattox r. Leach, 63. 
Manldin r. Branch Bank, 366, 753. 
Maule r. Crawford, 104. 
Maul] r. Vaughn, 186. 
Maaney r. Coit, 1276. 
>Iaupin r. Compton, 736. 
Maurain r. Bull us, 1755. 
Maurin r. Lambert, 1230. 
Maury v. Coleman, 860. 

r. Kogers, 640, 1726. 
Mauz Ferry Gravel R. Co. v, Brane- 
gan, 424, 1088a. 
Mawson r. Blane, 236. 
Maxey r. Knight, 1458. 
Maxwell r. Morehart, 62, 852. 

r. Vansant, 728. 
ilaxwell & Putnam v. Southern Pac. 

R. Co., 1741. 
May V, Boisseeu, 1109, 1128, 1130, 
1140, 1141, 1184. 

t, Campbell, 751. 

V. Chapman, 7955. 

V. Coffin, 1144, 1170, 1172. 

t. Cooper, 616. 

V. Dyer, 689a, 729, 741. 

V, Hewitt, 303. 

f>, Jones, 180, 644, 934, 955, 16185. 

V. Kelly, 295, 362, 485. 

V. Miller, 92. 

V. Newman, 1342. 

V. Quimby, 832. 

V. Reed, 1326. 
Mayberry r. Boynton, 1788. 

p. Morriss, 800a, 832. 
Mayer r. Heidelbach, 832. 

V. Isaac, 1755, 1770, 1772. 

V. Jadis, 1196, 1197. 

r. Mode, 831c. 

V. Old, 93, 536, 812. 

9. Thomas, 571. 
Mayes v, Robinson, 775. 
Mayhew r. Boyd, 1311. 

V. Crickett, 1311, 1321, 1340, 1789. 

V. Prince, 311. 
Maykin v. Kirby, 747. 
Maynard t7. Fellows, 361. 

V. Johnson, 125. 

r. Mier, 62. 

r. National Bank, 827. 
Mayo r. Chenoweth, 102. 
Mayor r. Eschback, 440. 

r. Hammond, 128. 

V. Johnson, 1475, 1479, 1695. 



Mayor r. Lord, 1537, 1542. 

r. Ray, 420, 427. 
Mayor of Alexandria v. Patten, 1250, 

1251. 
Mayor of City of Columbus v, Denni- 

son, 1537, 1545, 1547. 
Mayor of Griffin r. City Bank, 1506a. 
Mayor of New York v. Sands, 795a. 
Mayor, etc. r. Potomac Ins. Co., 1493, 

1506, 1509&, 1510. 
Mayor of Wetumpka v. Wetumpka 

Wharf Co., 420, 814. 
Mays V. Callison, 670. 
Maxwell r. Agnew, 1703. 
Maz V. Miller, 1267. 
Maze r. Baised, 46. 
M'Arthur v. Bloom, 245. 
McAllister v. Pitts, 1778. 
McArthur v. Magee, 832a. 

r. National Bank, 17346. 
McBain v. Seligman, 795a. 
McBean r. Morrison, 400. 
McBlair v, Gibbes, 200. 
McBride v. Farmers' Bank, 339, 344. 

V. Potter-Lovell Co., 1340. 
McBrown r. Corp. of Lebanon, 101. 
McCabe r. Raney, 859. 
McCall 17. Clayton, 404. 

V. Taylor, 92. 
McCalley V, Wilburn, 262. 
McCallum v. Driggs, 164, 633, 7l3a, 

717, 1191. 
MeCampbell v. McCampbell, 241. 
McCandler v. Canning Co., 403. 
McCandless v. Campbell, 403. 
McCann r. City of Albany, 1799. 

17. Lewis, 812. 

17. Randall, 436, 744. 
McCannon 17. Shantz, 775. 
McCarty v. Roots, 703. 
McCarty & Co. 17. Louisville Bank. Co., 

774, 775, 812. 
McCathem v. Bell, 721a. 
McCaughey 17. Smith, 1388. 
McCaughy v. Berg, 678a. 
McCauley t7. Murdock, 769a. 
McCaun v, Preston, 87. 
McCausland v. Rulston, 194. 
McCherd v. Ford, 66. 
McClae v. Sutherland, 94, 361. 
McClan i?. Lowther, 1687. 
McClane i;. Fitch, 681, 588, 1043. 
McClaraghan t7. Hines, 80. 
McClellan v. City Nat. Bank, 196. 

V. Reynolds, 418. 
McClelland v. Bartlett, 1227. 

17. Bishop, 594. 

V. Coffin, 55. 

17. Detroit File Works, 366, 386. 

17. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 1496a, 
1501. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



McClelland i\ Robe, 305. 
McCless V. Meekins, 1522. 
McClintock v. Cummings, 815. 

V. State Bank, 1421. 
McCluny v. Tackson, 1260. 
McClure r. Bennett, 306, 307, 406. 

V. Little, 1403, 1404. 

V. Livermore, 400. 

V. McClure, 183. 

V. Township of Oxford, 14«8, 1503, 
1538, 1544, 1550. 
McCollum t7. Boughton, 1338a. 
McComas v. Haas, 41. 
McComb 17. Kittridge, 1317, 1317a. 

V, Thompson, 713a. 
McComber v. Dunham, 1458a. 
McConkey v. Petterson, 207. 
McConnell v. Hector, 216. 

17. Hodsan, 776. 

V. McConnell, 24. 

V. Murray, 24, 24a. 

r. Thomas, 1189. 
McCord 17. Callaway & Co., 366. 

V. Ford, 1246. 

t?. McCord, 24. 

V. National Bank, 1603. 
McCorkle v. Miller, 787. 
McCormack r. Trotter, 56. 
McCormal v. Redden, 185, 186, 1340. 
McCormick v. Altneare & Co., 1260. 

17. Harvesture Co. & Taylor, 319. 

V, Hickey, 128. 

r. Holmes, 854. 

t7. Littler, 212. 

17. Molburg, 849a. 

17. Peters, 1245. 

17. Stockton, 402, 1220. 

17. Williams. 780. 
McCormick Machine Co. 17. Gustafson, 

203. 
McCoster 17. Banks, 802, 815. 
McCoy V. Green, 62. 

17. Lockwood, 142, 1395. 

17. Washington County, 1491, 
1726. 
McCracken 17. German Fire Ins. Co., 
834a. 

17. San Francisco, 318. 
McCrady v. Jones, 181, 766, 1204. 
McCramer 17. Thompson, 855, 1387. 
McCrary r. Caskey, 76. 
McCrillis i?. How, 225. 
McCroskey t7. Ladd, 203. 
McCrummen 17. Campbell, 32. 
M'Crummen i;. M'Crummen. 1005a. 
McCullis V. Bartlett, 212. 
McCulloch 17. Hoffman, 174. 
McCullough 17. Cook, 643. 

17. Kervin, 1251. 

17. Moss, 386a, 387, 389, 393. 

t7. State of Maryland, 126. 



McCullough 17. Virginia, 448. 

V. Wainwright, 98. 
McCune f. Belt, 703, 980. 
McCurbin v. Tumbull, 1378. 
McCurdy v. Bowes, 60a, 730. 

17. Prugh, 800a, 
McCutchen 17. Rice, 499, 504, 508. 
McDade v. Mead, 1424. 
McDaniel 17. Cluninski, 833. 

17. Pressler, 1187. 
McDoal 17. Yeomans, 1769a. 
McDonald 17. Aufdengarten, 177, 205, 
812, 815. 

17. Bailey, 899, 1099. 

V. Beer, 206. 

V. Haestes, 156. 

17. Jackson, 1471. 

17. Lee, 633. 

17. Magruder, 703, 703a, 1204. 

17. Mackenzie, 1437. 

17. McPherson, 1703. 

17. Musoatine Nat. Bank, 850. 

17. Rankin, 267. 

V. Whitfield, 703a. 1340. 
McDongale v. Walling, 1324. 
McDonnell v. Burns, 607. 

V. Keller, 56. 
McDowall 17. Chambers, 74. 

17. Cook, 531. 

17. Goldsmith, 728. 
McDowell 17. Bank of Wilmington, 
3266. 

17. Bank, 1708<i. 
McDuffie f. Dame, 1437. 
McEldery i7. Chapman, 262. 
McElroy 17. Albany Sav. Bank, 1612b 
McElvain t\ Mudd, 127, 172, 173. 
McElwee 17. Collins, 765. 

17. Met. Lumber Co., 1221, 1623. 
McElwee Mfg. Co. 17. Trowbridge, 726a, 

782. 
McEvers v. Mason, 602, 550, 552. 
McEwan 17. Smith, 1712. 
McEwin 17. Gordon, 1390. 
McFall 17. Murray, 85, 1578. 
McFarland v. Pico, 590a, 963, 983, 
1212. 

r. Sikes, 63, 68a, 81a. 
McFelrich i7. Woodrow, 713a. 
McGahan & Co r. Lockett, 21, 747. 
McGahey i?. Virginia, 448. 
McGarry et al 17. Nicklin, 868, 922, 
McGavock r. Puryear, 200. 
MGee r. Prouty, 1336. 
^IcGee V. Connor, 710, 713a. 

17. Riddlessarber, 748a. 
McGeorge v. Chapman, 1116. 
\rcGhee 17. National Bank, 1785. 
McGill 17. McGill, 3265. 
McGlynn v. Scott, 183. 
McGonn 17. Shirk, 1247. 



References are to 
paragropha marked f. 



TABL,£ OF CASES. 



CI 



McGoQgli r. Jamison, 1707a. 
!McGovem r. Hoeenback, 125. 
McGower r. West, 39. 
McOrade v. German Sav. Inst., 1637. 
McGrath v. Clark, 142, 1385, 1406, 
1408. 

V. Barnes, 80, 182. 
McGraw t?. Gentry, 112. 
McGregor r. Bishop, 201. 
McGregory v. McGregory, 1185. 
McGmder r. Bank of Washington, 

571, 635, 654a, 1145, 1146. 
McGuire r. Allen, 720a, 721. 

V. Bidwell, 1260. 

V. Bosworth, 713a. 

17. Gadsby, 1260, 1266. 
McGuirk v. Cummins, 00. 
McHenry f. Duffield, 307. 

r. Hazard, 727. 

V. Ridgely, 687. 
McHugh p. County of Schuylkill, 1352, 

]35*2a, 13526. 
Mclntire v. Insurance Co., 643. 

r. Oliver, 374. 

V. Preston, 385. 

r. Tates, 184, 834. 
Mcintosh r. Haydon, 672, 1379. 

V. Lyttle, 102, 1571, 1571a. 

V. Tyler, 1599a, 1623. 
Mclntyre v. Kennedy, 1260. 

V, Moore, 1338. 

r. Preston, 384. 
McKaney v. McNabb, 1317, 13176. 
McXee r. Vernon Co., 1402a. 
McKee r. Whitworth, 1339. 
McKeen r. Bank, 1654a. 
McKenna r. Kirkwood, 834. 
M'Kenny r. Peters, 262. 

F. Waller, 1311. 
3fcKenzie r. Brit. Linen Co., 1350. 

r. Durant, 1209. 

V. Hunt, 1437. 

r. Scott, 314. 

r. Wimberly, 710. 
McKesson r. Stanberry, 815. 
McKewer v. Kirkland, 611, 996. 
McKim r. King, 1506. 
MlCinnell F. Robinson, 200. 
McKinney r. Bradbury, 362. 

f?. Crawford, 611, 996. 

V. Hopwood, 249. 

V. Whipple, 646. 
McKinster v. Bank of Utica, 327. 
McKissick v. Baxter, 363. 
McKinzie v. Bristol Linen Co., 1352a. 
McKleroy v. Southern Bank of Ky., 

1362. 
MTiachlan r. Evans, 1687. ' 
McLanahan r. Mott, 1506a. 
McLain v, Lohr, 725a. 



McLane r. Sacramento, etc., R. Co., 

1506. 
McLaren r. Cochran, 815. 

r. Hall, 1260. 

F. Watson's Exrs., 1774, 1775, 
1777. 
McLean v. Fleming, 1733. 

r. Hertzog, 1483. 

F. Lowe, 3406. 

F. Nichlen, 88. 

F. Ryan, 1056. 
McLemore 17. Powell, 1316. 
McLeod F. Evans, 336, 340e. 

F. Snyder, 1186a. 
M'Lughan v. Bovard, 1260, 1267. 
McMahon f. Savings Bank, 24. 
McMarchey f. Robinson, 624, 026. 
McMasters f. Reed, 382. 
McMean f. Little, 95, 1085. 
McMenomy F. Ferrers, 16a, 21. 
McMicken F. Beauchamp, 1418. 
McMillan F. M'Neil, 875. 
McMillen v. County Judge, 1535, 1560. 
McMiller v, Hefferlin, 1376. 
McMinn f. Owen, 81. 

V. Richmonds, 225. 
McMonigal F. Brown, 605, 1106. 
McMoran f. Lange, 7076. 
McMorran r. Murphy, 1266. 
McMullan f. Rafferty, 1215. 
McMurtie f. Jones, 1019. 
McMurtrey v. Sparks, 1373. 
McNair v. Gilbert, 1472. 

F. Moore, 571, 639, 1310. 
McNairy f. Bell, 643. 
McNamara v. Condon, 205. 

F. Gargett, 166, 204, 789. 

F. McDonald, 26. 
McNamee f. Carpenter, 1183a, 1191. 
McNaught r. McClaughny, 86. 
McNeal^\ McCamley, 1260. 

F. Wyatt, 995o. 
McNealy v. Gregory, 172, 173. 
McNeel v. Shaver, etc., Co., 415. 
McNeil F. Tenth Nat. Bank, 1708^. 
M'Neilage F. Holloway, 254, 1184. 
M'Neilly f. Patchin, 1340. 
McNeil F. Smith, 202. 
McNelly f. Ford. 317. 
McNight F. Knialey, 832. 
McNisch F. Ramsey, 49. 
McPeters f. Blankenship, 427. 

F. Philips, 1454. 
McPherson f. Bondreau, 824, 827. 

F. Weston, 718, 722, 1192. 
McPhillips F. Jones, 713e. 
McRae v. Rhodes. 1074. 
McRaven r. Crislen, 1403. 
McSherry F. Brooks, 724a. 
McSparran F. Neely, 85, 214. 
McVaughters i;. Elder, 261. 



Cll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f . 



McVean v. Scott, 1387, 1388. 
McVeigh t\ Allen, 767a, 1052. 

V, Bank of Old Dominion, 90, 218, 
1048, 1060, 1062, 1070, 1085. 

V. Cantrell, 248. 

V, Howard, 88. 
McWirt V. McKee, 721. 
Meacham v. Pinson, 62. 
Meacher v. Fort, 538, 1354, 1356. 
Meachum v. Dow, 196. 
Mead v. Caswell, 1590. 

V. Engs, 331, 992. 

V, Merchants* Bank, 134, 390, 391, 
1610a. 

V. Munson, 850. 

V, National Bank of Pawling, 158. 

V. Small, 1242. 

V. Young, 692, 1345. 
Meade v. Sandidge, 789, 789a, 1410a. 
Meader v. Scott, 1428. 
Meadow v. Bird, 188. 
Meadowcraft et <U. v. Walsh, 698d, 

1191, 11926. 
Means v. Anderson, 1318. 

f. Kendall, 1480. 

V. Swormstedt, 408. 
Mears r. Graham, 86, 403, 406. 

V. Waples, 1731, 1734. 
Mechanics' Assn. v, Ferguson, 824. 
Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 
299, 392, 398, 419. 

V, Earp, 312, 344. 

17. Griswold, 1132, 1170. 

V. Livingston, 369a, 490. 

V. Merchants' Bank, 598, 658, 

nosd, 

V. N. \. & N. H. R. Co., 273, 1503, 
1708. 

i;. Straitor, 99. 

V. Stratton, 1671. 

V, Townsend, 862. 

V. Valley Packing Co., 698, 698o, 
698(2. 

V. Yager, 497a. 
Mechanics, etc., Bank v, Barnett, 833a. 

V. Crow, 183a, 814. 

V. Farmers, etc., Bank, 1731. 

V. Schaumburg, 282. 

V. Schuyler, 83, 630. 
Mechanics & T. Nat. Bank v. Cron, 
831c. 

t\ F. & M. Bank, 1734a. 
Mechanics' Banking Assoc, v. Place, 

1017. 
Mecdrney v. Stanley, 715. 
Medbury r. Watrous, 229. 
Medenhall v. Davis, 717, 719. 
Medlin v. Buford, 834a. 

V. Platte, etc., 1373a. 
Medway Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 

399. 



Meech r. Smith, 1763. 

Meed v, Keller, 382. 

Meeker v. Jackson, 1478, 1480. 

V. Shanks, 792, 1190. 
Meggadow r. Holt, 1170. 
Meggett V. Baum, 1335a. 
Megginson i*. Harper, 99. 
Meggot V. Mills, 1252. 
Megrath v. Gilmore, 1623. 
Mehlberg v. Fisher, 1260, 1276. 
Meir & Co. v. Bank, 360, 361. 
Meise v, Doscher, 142, 1385, 1406, 

713c. 
Meitzler r. Todd, 374, 1215. 
Meiswinkler v, Jung, 1317. 
Melan r. Fitzjames, 886. 
Melanotte r. Teasdale, 40. 
Melendy v. Keen, 834. 
Meldrum v, Henderson, 1612a. 
Melick V. First Nat. Bank, 1309. 
Melledge v, Boston Iron Co., 399. 
Mellersh t'. Rippen, 978. 
Mellish V. Rawdon, 465, 473, 612. 

V. Simeon, 1448. 
Melton V. Brown, 713a. 

t\ Gibson, 99. 
Meltzer r. Doll, 183. 
Melvill V, Glendinning, 1331. 

t?. Hayden, 1770. 
Memphis Bethel r. Bank, 832a, 1496, 

1503. 
Menasha v. Hazard, 1523a, 1537. 
Menaugh r. Chandler, 1332. 
Menerd v. Sludder, 1770a. 
Mendez v. Carreroon, 575, 1229, 1230. 
Mendinhall r. Stewart, 1799. 
Mendizabel v, Machado^ 509. 
Menifee v. Clark, 1319. 
Menkens v. Heringhi, 252, 254. 
Mentross v, Clark, 790. 
Mercam v, Rundlett, 800a. 
Mercantile Bank v. Cox, 363. 

V. McCarthy, 1016. 
Mercer v. Lancaster, 1022. 
Mercer County v. Hacket, 10, 389, 
1495, 1496, 1500, 1501, 1530, 
1537, 1541. 

V. Hubbard, 1511, 1512a, 1545, 
1550. 

r. Life Ins. Co., 63. 

V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 1535. 
Merchants' Bank r. Bank of the Com- 
monwealth, 1622a. 

r. Birch, 1001. 

V. Bussell, 1322, 1324. 

r. Central Bank, 301, 392. 

t\ Eagle Bank, 1622a. 

V. Easley, 1084. 

r. Elderkin, 656. 

V. Evans, 643. 

V, Griswold, 278, 551. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked S- 



TABLE OF CAS£S. 



cm 



Merchants' Bank r. McAnulty, 1327. 

F. McClelland, 184, 775, 780. 

r. Marine Bank, 395. 

V. McKay, 1311. 

r. McNutt, 1005. 

r. Spicer, 74, 688a, 1567, 1586, 
1587, 1590, 1652. 

17. State Bank, 389, 390, 391, 392, 
412, 1536, 1572, 1601a, 1602, 
1603, 1610. 

V. Union R. Co., 1747a. 
Merchants &, Mfrs'. Bank v. Cumings, 

833. 
Merchants ft Mech. Sav. Bank r. 

Fraze, 61. 
Merchants ft Plantecs' Bank r. Meyer, 

1572. 
Merchants ft P. N. Bank r. Trustees, 

812, 815, 1468. 
Merchants ft F. Bank v. Wexson, 831c. 
Merchants' Co. v. Cornforth, 1741. 
Merchants' Exch. Bank t\ Fuldner, 
1435. 

r. Luckow, 68, 815. 
3tferchants' Ins. Co. v. Hauck, 1318. 
Merchants' Nat. Bank t*. Abemathy, 
827, 834. 

r. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 388. 

V. Citizens' St. Bank, 1769. 

r. Clark, 284, 802. 

r. Comstock, 177, 293a, 781. 

r. Demers, 833. 

V. Eyre, 1312. 

V. Goodman, 328, 654a, 1599a. 

r. Gr^gs, 664. 

r. Hanson, 69Sd. 

r. Levitt, 802a. 

t. McAnulty, 1340. 

r. Nat. Bank of the Common- 
wealth, 1226. 

V. New Brunswick Sav. Inst., 
1652. 

r. Railway Equipment Co., 48. 

V. Ritzinger, 1567,^ 1572. 

r. Robinson ft Co., 326&. 

V. Samuel, 1623. 

r. Stafford Nat. Bank, 327. 

r. Sevier, 62. 

r. Tracy, 205, 802. 
Merchants' Sav. Bank i;. Moore, 688c. 
^lercbants' State Bank v. State Bank 

of Philips, 970, 1069, 1277a. 
Merdock r. Aradt, 719. 
Merle r. Wells, 1772. 
Meridian Nat. Bank of Indianapolis v. 

First Nat. Bank of Shelbyville, 

136, 1388, 1348, 1607a, 1608, 1652. 
Merrell r. Springer, 742. 
Merrett r. Duncan, 509, 781a, 812. 
Merriam r. Moody's Exr., 1525. 

r. Rockwood, 854. 



Merriam i\ Rundlett, 800, 800a, 1379. 

r. Walcott, 284, 731a, 740a. 
Merrick v. Boury, 1260, 1268, 1410. 

r. Butler, 724a. 
Merrill v. Carr, 196. 

r. Duncan, 775. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 793a. 

v. Fleming, 196. 

r. Hole, 7966, 796. 

V. Monticello, 422. 

V, Muzzy, 62. 

V. Sypert, 816. 

V. Peaslee, 183. 
Merriman v. Barber, 1329. 
Merriman ft Co. v, Knox, 807. 

V, Miles' Exr., 1312. 
Merritt r. Anderson, 1643. 

17. Bagwell, 849a. 

r. Benton, 933. 

V. Duncan, 781a. 

V. Gate City Nat. Bank, 1887. 

V. Todd, 609, 1702. 
Mersman v. Werges, 1373, 1389. 
Mertens v, Withington, 1254. 
Merz t?. Kaiser, 576, 1017, 
Messenger t?. Southey, 979, 983. 
Messin^er v. Vaughan, 1760. 
Metcalf t\ Douglas, 1590. 

v. Williams, 305. 
Metcalfe v. Richardson, 972, 985, 1158, 

1160. 
Metropolitan Bank t\ MuUer et al,, 

710, 1336a. 
Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Jones, 
1601a, 1603, 1604. 

V, Loyd, 336, 1621. 

t*. Mer. Nat. Bank, 1661. 
Metropolitan Sav. Bank v. Murphy, 

24a. 
Metzerott v. Ward, 719, 1272. 
Metzer v. Carr, 1260. 
Metzger v, Waddell, 597. 
Meyer v. Brown, 1560. 

V. City of Muscatine, 1500, 1523, 
1532, 1537, 1540, 1547. 

r. Columbia, 795a. 

V. Haworth, 240. 

V. Hibscher, 639, 640, 709, 1180. 

t\ Huneke, 1410, i412. 

r. Koehring, 181. 

r. Peck, 1729, 1729a. 

V. Richards, 734a. 

V. Weil, 73. 
Meyer ft Co. ». Decroix, 517. 
Meyers r. Standart, 515. 
Meyerstein v. Barber, 1731, 1731a, 

1737. 
Meyron r. Abel, 370, 373. 
Michigan Bank t*. Eldred, 104, 367, 

368, 369, 843. 



CIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked 



Michigan Ins. Co. i\ Leavenworth, 83, 

142, 267, 599. 
Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. v, Custer, 

1316. 
Michigan State Bank v. Leavenworth, 
562, 831, 1329, 1330. 
V. Pecks, 601. 
Michalitschke Bros. v. Wells, Fargo 

& Co., 1741. 
Mickery v. Burton, 812. 
Mickles v. Colvin, 187. 
Micklewait v. Noell, 854. 
Middaugh v. Elliot, 1373. 
Middlesex v. Thomas, 1260, 1276. 
Middleton v. Allegheny County, 1527a. 
V. Griffith, 694, 1093, 1181, 1181a, 
1196, 1198, 1200. 

t?. McCarter, 703a. 

V. Pollock, 1428. 
Middleton Bank u. Morris, 1586, 1592. 
Midland Nat. Bank v. Brightwell, As- 
signee, 326a, 333, 334, 335. 

V, Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1730, 
1731, 1746a. 

r. Roll, 698d. 

V. Scho^n, 366, 367, 1300a. 
Miers v. Brown, 972, 986, 1175. 
Milberg v. Stoner, 1393. 
Milburn v. Guyther, 1425. 
Milenoy t\ Keen, 748a. 
Miles V. Hall, 1019. 

V, Williams, 681. 
Milks V, Rich, 739a, 1763. 
Millard v. Barton, 860. 
Millaudon v. Arnons, 1305. 

V. Keen, 748a. 
Millbank v. de Riesthal, 389. 
Miller v. Austen, 1703. 

V. Boykin, 824, 829. 

t?. Biddel, 48. 

V, Board of Education, 519. 

V, Butler, 497. 

V. Cavanaugh, 1468. 

V. Clendenin, 74. 

V, Consolidated Bank, 369. 

V. Davis, 1216. 

V. Delamater, 252, 681. 

t\ Dill, 1219. 

V. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank, 

831&. 
V, Fichaus, 504, 797. 
V, Finley, 214, 1389. 
V, Fitchin, 856. 
t?. Gilleland, 1377. 
t?. Gunderson, 80. 
V. Hackley, 9, 960, 961, 1021, 

1054, 1056, 1110, 1163. 
V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 1729. 
V, Helm, 265. 
V, House, 294. 
V. Hughes, 368. 
V. Jeffrees, 246. 



Miller r. Knight, 1328. 
V. Larman, 125. 
V, Larned, 726, 786, 793a, 834. 
V. Lumsden, 1260, 1268, 1276. 
V. McCan, 1317. 
V. McMullen, 1646. 
v. Miller, 24. 
t\ Moore, 403, 404. 
r. Morrow, 125. 
r. Moyer, 816. 
V. Ord, 748. 
17. Palmer, 117. 
V. Poague, 60. 
V, Pollock, 827. 

i\ Race, 771, 1603, 1672, 1687. 
V. Ray, 1520. 
V, Reed, 1390. 
r. Reigne, 261. 
V, Reynolds, 307. 
V. Ridgely, 714, 714a. 
V. Roach, 408. 
V. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 1491o. 

1492. 
V. Stem, 1319. 
t?. The Chicago & A.ton R. Co., 

1733. 
V. Thompson, 129, 481, 482. 
t\ Tiffany, 922, 923. 
V. Trevillian. 1250. 
V. Weeks, 130. 
V. White, 81. 
V. Williamson, 235. 
V. Wilson, 1221. 
Milligan v. Pollard, 209. 
Milliken v. Brown, 1290. 
V. Chalmers, 7316. 
V. Chapman, 737. 
Million V. Ohmsberg, 196. 
Mills t\ Bank of U. S., 615, 622, 623. 
661, 662. 979, 983, 997a. 
V, Barber, 165, 177, 814. 
V. Barney, 1702, 1703. 
i\ Beard, 1098. 
V. Charleston, 1556, 1563. 
V. Davis, 1215. 
r. Fowlkes, 1252. 
v. Gleason, 1622, 1529, 1530. 
r. Hyde, 1227. 
r. Jefferson, 1514. 
r. Kuykendale, 50. 
r. Mills, 188. 
V. Porter, 781a. 
r. Reuse, 1106. 
r. Stewart, 800a. 
r. Town of Jefferson, 1500, 1513, 
1514. 
Millspaugh r. Putnam, 24a. 
Milne f. Graham, 903. 
^filner f. Gray, 96. 
Milnes v. Duncan, 1226. 
Milton t?. De Yampert, 713e. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CV 



Milwaukee Mason & Builder Assn. r. 

Niezerowski, 196. 
Mims V. Macon, etc., R. Co., 1281. 

t\ \Ve?t, 800a. 
Minard r. Mead, 253. 
Minell r. Read, 800. 
Miner r. Be\^ick, 1192a. 

r. Hovt, 1437. 

r. Vedder, 427. 
Mineral Point R. Co. r. Barron, 890. 
Minet r. Gilson, 136, 1571. 
Minot r. Russ, 1604. 
Mining Co. r. Bank. 728, 775. 
Minor v. Mechanic8* Bank of Alexan- 
dria. 304, 687. 

r. Minor, 1452. 

r. Rogers, 24a. 
Minot V. Curtis, 399. 
Minter r. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 1741. 
Minter Bros. v. Southern Kansas Ry. 

Co., 1733a. 
Mintum r. Fisher, 1103, 1106, 1574, 

1576, 1634a. 
Miranda v. City Bank, 1106. 
Miser r. Trooinger, 999a, 1074. 
Misher r. Carpenter, 672. 
Missouri Loan Bank r. Garner, 1289. 
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Atkinson, 68, 
156, 1590. 

r. Councilman, 22. 

r. McLiney, 1731. 
Mitchell V. Baring, 508, 523, 635, 651, 
652, 6"35. 

V. Burlington, 1523, 1525. 

c. Byrne, 63. 

r. Catehings, 783. 

r. Cockbum, 200. 

r. Cross, 1039, 1041, 1045. 

r. Culver, 1376. 

r. De Grand, 454, 589, 619, 626. 

r. Eaton, 1707. 

V. Friedley, 1429. 

V. Hewitt, 56. 

r. Mitchell, 125. 

r. Osbom, 370. 

r. Rome R. Co., 38, 386. 

V. Sellman, 1428. 

r. St. Mary, 573. 

V. ToniUnson, 815, 849. 
Mitchinson v, Hewson, 258. 
Mitford c. Walcot, 491, 529, 547. 
MittDAcht r. Bache, 1612a. 
Mix r. Ely, 1282. 

r. ^Kladison Ins. Co., 924. 

r. Xat. Bank, 829a, 832. 
3£ize r. Xat. Bank, 24a. 
Moakley r. Riggs, 1769. 
Mobile Bank r. Brown, 56. 
Mobile Sav. Bank r. McDonnell, 599, 

1215. 



Mobley r. Clark, 424, 1082. 

V. Ryan, 728. 
Moddie r. Breiland, 1421. 
Moeckley t*. Gorton, 196. 
Moers r. City of Reading, 1523. 
Moffat V. Edwards, 41. 

r. Greene, 1343. 

V, Van Milligan, 354. 
Moffett r. Bickle, 674. 
Moffit V. Roche, 356. 
Mogadara v. Holt, 1170. 
Moge V. Herndon, 1416. 
Moggridge r. Jones, 203. 
Mohawk Bank r. Broderick, 1578, 
1587, 1594, 1007, 1651. 

V. Corey, 790, 793. 
Mohawk Nat. Bank r. Van Slyck, 363. 
Mohawk Nat. Bank of Schenectady r. 

Schenectady, 1708«f. 
Moires r. Bird, 80, 707, 17G0, 1765. 

v, Knapp, 92. 
Moise V. Chapman, 1689. 
Molbin V. Southard, 685. 
Moline, Kx parte, 1002, 1036, 1235. 
Molloy r. Delves, 497a. 
Molson's Bank r. Howard, 496. 
Molton r. Cramroux, 210, 214. 
Moltram r. Heyer, 1731a. 
Money r. Rieketts, 782. 
Monroe r. Bonanno, 1226. 

r. Cooper, 369, 816, 819. 

r. Fohl, 1252. 

r. Hoflf, 737, 1265. 

r. Whitehouse, 1431. 
Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Arnold, 387. 
Monseaux v. Urquhart, 222. 
Monson t\ Drakeley, 94, 1387. 
Montague v. Perkins, 143, 490, tl7. 
Montchine r. Charles, 472. 
Montclair v. Ramsdell, 804. 
Montford v. American Guano Co., 205. 
Montgomery r. Budge, 918. 

V. Elliott, 647. 

V. Forbes, 399a. 

V. Hunt, 156. 

V. Kellogg, 1785, 17856. 

V, Page, 156, 175. 

V. Sayre, 1310, 1311. 

r. Tutt, 643. 

V. Whitbeck, 234. 
Montgomery County Bank v. Marsh, 
1022 1025. 

r. Albany' City Bank, 341, 344, 
345, 492. 
Montgomery Nat. Bank t'. Armstrong, 

330. 
Montgomery R. Co. r. Trebles, 997, 

1238, 1242. 
Montjoy r. Delta Bank, 196. 
Montpelier Bank i-. Dixon, 1311. 
Montrose r. Boyd, 1300. 



CVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



Monumental National Bank t?. Globe 

Works, 386. 
Moodalay f. East India Co., 1527a. 
Moodie r. Morrall, 590, 640, 1031, 

1180. 
Moody t\ Findiey, 703. 

f. Mack, 1073. 

V. Mark, 1686. 

r. Nat. Bank, 698(i. 

f?. Rowell, 1219. 

V, Threlkeld, 99, 490. 
Moon V. Foster, 217, 218. 
Moore v. Baird, 757, 767. 

V. Barthrop, 1623. 

V. Candell, 181. 

V. Clopton, 867. 

r. Coffield, 1123. 

V. Cross, 713e. 

V, Cushing, 703. 

V. Davis, 16a. 

i;. Denslow, 683. 

V. Fall, 1484, 1485. 

V. Greenhow, 448. 

t?. Kinsley, 210, 213. 

r. HoUowman, 1209. 

V. Holt, 1755. 

V. Hubbard, 185, 664a. 

V, Hutchinson, 1385, 1411. 

V. Lackman, 370. 

V. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 17346. 

V. Macon Sav. Bank, 1317, 1397. 

V. McClure, 305. 

V. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 1708^. 

V. Moore, 24a, 122, 125, 1215. 

t?. Pollock, 335. 

V. Quirk, 122, 126. 

V, Redding, 1317a. 

V, Rider, 758, 791, 793, 826, 831o. 

V. Robinson, 858, 1750a. 

V. Staser, 62, 62a. 

V, Thompson, 205. 

V, Vogel, 202. 

17. Waitt, 658. 

1?. Wallace, 1770a. 

». Ward, 794. 

r. Warren, 1262. ■ 

V. Wilby, 497. 
Moorman v. Bank of Alabama, 980. 

V. Perry, 370. 

V, Wood, 717. 
Moose v. Marks, 1251. 

V. Miami Co., 317, 389, 1500, 
1503, 1537. 
Mordecai v. Dawkins, 200. 

t\ Gilmer, 367. 
More V. Manning, 698(i. 
Morehead v, Parkersburg Nat. Bank, 

144, 1378. 
Morehead Bkg. Co. v. Morehead, 262. 
Morelands, Assignee v. Citizens' Sav. 

Bank, 325, 793. 



Morey v. Laird, 1966. 

V, Wakefield, 608. 
Morford v. Davis, 674. 

17. Farmers' Bank, 381. 
Morgan v. Bank of Louisville, 1060, 
1070, 1071, 1663. 

17. Bank of N. A., 1708d. 

17. Creditors, 1266, 1266a. 

V. Davi^n, 603. 

V. Edwards, 54a, 62. 

V, Jones, 1458a. 

17. Reintzel, 1478. 

V. Richardson, 201. 

V. United States, 604, 606, 607, 
724a, 782, 1500, 1503, 1505. 

t?. Van Ingen, 960, 961. 
Morgner v. Bigelow, 724. 
Moriey 17. Boothby, 1764. 

V. Culverwell, 7816, 1233. 
Morling v. Bronson, 48. 
Mornyer v. Cooper, 803. 
Morrell i?. Codding, 406. 

V, Cowan, 1770. 
Morrill v. Brown, 1672, 1673a. 

17. Sypert, 418. 
Morris t7. Bacon, 8346. 

t7. Bethel, 1353. 

V. Cain, 151, 154. 

V. Case, 815. 

V. Cleasley, 314. 

17. Cude, 1196. 

V. Edwards, 56. 

17. Faurot, 722. 

17. Georgia Loan Co., 802. 

17. Hervey, 1266, 1266a, 1267, 
1300. 

17. Husson, 1023. 

r. Lee, 35. 

V, McMorris, 125. 

r. Morton, 63, 792. 

r. Preston, 693. 

17. Richards, 627. 

17. Summeril, 330. 

V. Walker, 707. 

17. West, 800a. 

c. White, 195a, 834. 
Morris Bkg. & Can. Co. r. Fisher, 
1500. 

17. Lewis, 1496, 1503, 1517. 
Morris County r. Maddox, 357. 
Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal 

Co., 200. 
Morrison r. Bailey, 1568, 1569, 1574, 
1576, 1587, 1590. 1600, 1638. 

17. Buchanan, 464, 492. 

17. Garth, 1411. 

17. Hartman, 1311. 

r. Lovell, 219, 733. 

17. McCarty, 1587. 

17. Perry, 370. 

17. Smith, 1401. 



References are to 
poragrQphe marked %, 



TABLE OF CASES. 



evil 



Morrison r. Taylor, 291. 

V. Thistle, 249. 
Morrison Liumber Co. v. Lookout Mt. 

Co., 707. 
Morriss r. Birmingham Nat. Bank, 
1810. 

V. Enfaula Nat Bank, 1587, 1590. 
Morrow v. Whitesides, 258. 
Morse r. Chamberlain, 1029. 

r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1734a. 

V. Clayton, 2b4, 26o. 

r. Green, 299. 

V. Huntington, 1322. 

V, Massachusetts Nat. Bank, 
1606a. 

V. Wheeler, 236. 

V. Woodworth, 1259. 
Mortee r. Edwards, 46, 49. 
Mortimer r Chambers, 163, 1219. 
Morton v. Burn, 827. 

9. Cammack, 1005. 

r. Naylor, 16a, 21, 23a, 461. 

r. N. O. ft Selma R. Co., 796, 1606. 

r. Preston, 706. 

V. Rogers, 17/. 

r. Steward, 225. 

r. Westcott, 1024. 
Moseley r. Hanford, 80. 
Mosely r. Graydon, 266. 
Moses r. ComstocK, 862. 

V. Kla, 1131. 

V. Franklin Bank, 1667, 1600, 
1636. 

V. Lawrence County Bank, 1767a. 

r. Trice, 205, 1228, 1266, 1478, 
1482. 
Moshannon Land Co. v. Sloan, 395. 
Mosher r. Allen, 1197. 

r. Indian School Dist., 1542, 1563. 
Moss 17. Adams, 1262. 

f?. Arerill, 382. 

V. Livingston, 413. 

9. Oakley, 382, 428. 

r. Stokeley, 19. 
Mofisop r. Eadon, 1475, 1479, 1484. 
Mott r. Havana Nat. Bank, 50a, 51. 

r. Hicks, 302, 382, 383, 408, 700. 

F. Rowland, 867. 
Moule r. Brown, 332, 1692, 1598. 
Moulton V. Poston, 1319. 
Moultrie Co. r. Fairfield, 1537. 
Mountford r. Harper, 1648. 
Mount Holly Turnpike Co. v, Ferree, 

1708i/. 
Mt Mansfield Hotel Co. v. Bailey, 666, 

1458, 1614, 1616. 
Mt Morris v. Gorham, 280, 296. 
Mt Sterling Nat Bank r. Green, 1672, 

1617. 
Mountstephen t\ Brooke, 98. 



Mt Sterling Turnpike Co. v. Looney, 

395. 
M. ft F. Bank v. F. M. Bank, 1734. 
Mt Vernon Bank r. Holden, 1064. 

r. Porter, 377. 
Mowery v. Mast, 1478. 
Mox r. State Bank, 901. 
Moxon V. Pulling, 689a. 
Moynahan r. Haxiford, 713a. 
Moye r. Cogdell, 1245. 
Mozingo V. Ross, 374. 
Mudd V. Reeves, 1676. 
Mudger v. Bullock, 26, 1262. 
Mudgett V, Day, 335. 
Mueller, In re, 1611a. 
Muench r. Valley Nat. Bank, 334. 
Muhling V, Settler, 130. 
Muilman v. D'Eguino, 466, 467, 469, 

471, 1037, 1046. 
Muir V. Crawford, 1322. 

V, Demaree, 1388. 

r. Rand, 1687. 
Muirhead r. Kirkpatrick, 196, 1311. 
Muldon V, Whitlock, 1267, 1268, 1300. 
Muldrow 17. Caldwell, 130, 663, 1397. 
Mull t7. Van Frees, 186. 
Mullen V. Hawkins, 203. 

V. Morris, 898, 901, 920, 945. 
Muller V. Pondin, 67. 
Mulhall Bros. r. Berg, 1227. 
Mullick r. Radakissen, 466, 466, 470, 

473, 474, 475. 
Mullins r. Brown, 317. 
Mumford r. Hawkins, 393. 

V, Tolmon, 61, 81. 

V. Weaver, 812. 
Mummerljm v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 

1586. 
Muncy Borough School Dist. r. Com- 
monwealth, 606, 612. 
Mundy c. Whitmore, 834. 
Munger r. Albany City Bank, 1707a. 

V. Shannon, 16a, 60. 
Mulnix i\ Spratlin, 1306. 
Munn t7. Baldwin, 1021. 

r. Birch, 1571. 1638. 

17. Commissioners' Co., 383, 751, 
760, 766. 

17. McDonald, 824. 
Munroe r. Bordier, 175, 178. 
Munro v. King, 81. 
Munson 17. Bank, 266. 

V, Munyon v. French, 1294. 
Murchie r. Macfarlane, 1373a. 
Murchie 17. Peck Bros., 80. 
Murdock f. Clark, 1261. 

17. Lee, 1377. 
Mure, Ex pa/rte, 1311. 
Murphey 17. 111. Tr. ft Sav. Bank, 186. 
Murphy t?. Gumaer, 166, 284, 827. 



CVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Murphy i". Keyes, 174. 
V, Phelps, 122, 1221. 
V. Weems, 200. 
Murray v. Ayer, 370a. 
V. Beckwith, 775. 
V. Burling, 1483. 
V. East India Co., 264, 290. 
V. Glasse, 241. 
17. Jones, 748, 834. 
V. Judah, 672, 1081, 1355a, 1586, 

1587, 1596, 1620, 1652. 
V. Kimball Co., 68. 
V. Lardner, 681, 724a, 775, 776, 

814, 1469, 1500, 1503. 
t?. Lylbourn, 800a. 
V. Pate, 1687. 
V. Reed, 724a. 
V. Snow, 1289. 
V. Todd, 747. 

V. Township of Oswego, 1542, 
1596. 
Murrell r. Jones, 170. 
Murrill v. Handy, 86. 
Murry v. Peterson, 1373a. 
Muscatine v. Sterneman, 125. 
Muse V. Dantzler, 32, 859. 
Musgrave v, Drake^ 369. 
Musselman v. Logansport, 1564. 

17. Oakes, 103. 
Mussey v. Eagle Bank, 1610a. 

V. Rayner, 1755, 17856. 
Musson t\ Lake, 654, 896, 898, 953, 

970, 983. 
Muth V, Trust Co., 1603, 1610, 1610a. 
Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Hun- 
tington, 834. 
Mutual Building & Loan Assn. v. 

Perry, 1337, 1338. 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. r. Hunt, 210. 
Mutual Mill Ins. Co. v. Gordon, 834. 
Mutual Nat. Bank r. Rotge, 1604. 
Muzzy r. Knight, 156. 
Myatt V. Bell, 373, 1260, 1301. 
Myer v. Beeman, 800a. 
V. Hurt, 62. 
V. Jacobs, 733. 
i7. Richards, 734a. 
Myers r. Byington, 1289. 

V, City of Jeffersonville, 1537. 
V. Diamond Joe Line, 1738. 
V. Farmers' St. Bank, 1339. 
V, Friend, 441, 663, 741. 
17. Huugina. 373. 
V. Neil, 1401. 
V. State Bank, 1311, 1326. 
V. Walker Bros. & Co., 283. 
v. Willis, 1329. 
17. York, etc., R. Co., 747. 
Mynard t?. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 1740a. 
Myrick t?. Hasey, 1782. 



N. 

Nagal 17. Lutz, 1183a. 
Nagel 17. Mignot, 1471, 1478. 
Nagle V. Homer, 508. 
Naglee t?. Lyman, 823. 
Nailor i?. Bowie, 654, 969. 
Nail V. Smith, 1407. 
Nance i?. Lary, 845. 

17. Winship Machine Co., 1788. 
Napier v. Elam, 827. 

17. Schneider, 1449. 
Narragansett Bank t\ Atlantic Silk 

Co., 388. 
Naser 17. First Nat. Bank, 334, 1731. 
Nash 17. Brown, 181. 

17. Fugate, 856. 

17. Gibbon, 54a. 

17. Harrington, 611, 1152, 1170, 
1172. 

17. Hodgson, 1252. 

17. Nash, 257. 

17. Town, 305, 
Nashville v. Ray, 1530. 
Nashville Bank v. Bennett, 1005. 
Nashville Lumber Co. v. Fourth Nat. 

Bank, 673. 
Nashville Trust Co. v. Smythe, 834. 
Nassau Bank v. Campbell, 1311. 
Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 1289, 1623. 
N^athan v. Giles, 1730a. 

17. Sloan, 713a. 
National Bank v. American Exch. 
Bank, 627, 1625. 

t\ Atlanta R. Co., 1731, 17336. 

t\ Bank, 335. 

17. Berry, 393. 

17. Brewster, 241. 

17. Brush, 720a. 

17. Burrott, 356, 357, 365. 

17. Cade, 1022. 

17. Citv of lola, 1520. 

17. Cotfman, 205, 248, 249. 

r. Dorset .viarble Co., 707, 713a. 

17. Fassett, 322. 

17. Fitze, 802. 

17. Flanagan, 790, 1309. 

17. Forbes. 1343. 

r. Gary, 18, 286. 

f. Graham, 286a. 

17. Groton Mfg. Co., 262. 

17. Gunhouse, 449. 

V. Herold, 427, 438. 

17. Howe. 802. 

V. Insurance Co., 334a, 336, 1612a. 

17. Johnson, 3266. 

V. Jose, 1260, 1322. 

17. Kirby, 787, 1506a. 

17. Kirk, 196. 

r. Law, 365. 

17. Leonard, 689a. 
1 17. Lewis, 205, 1110. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked S. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CIX 



Kational Bank v. Logan, 1592. 

0. Matthews, 969. 

r. McNair, 777. 

V, M. Nat. Bank, 1727, 1734a, 
1734b, 1734c. 

V. Miller, 815. 

V. Navassa Guano Co., 394. 

F. Second Nat. Bank, 1636. 

r. Nolting, 1654a, 1659. 

r. Norton, 369a, 3696, 370, '373. 

r. bilke, 104. 

r. Smith, 3266. 

r. Smoot, 869. 

r. Tappan, 1370. 

r. Texas, 724. 

1?. Thomas, 386, 388, 391. 

V. Watkins, 816. 

V. White, 790. 

V. Yankton, 1486. 

r. Voung. 382, 384, 775. 
Niational Bank of America v. The Nat. 

Bank of Illinois, 1652. 
National Bank of Battle Creek v. 

Dean, 1252. 
National Bank of Belief onte v. Mc- 

Manigle, 287. 
National Bank oi Commerce r. Gal- 
lard, 688c. 

V. Nat. M. B. Assn., 349a, 1166, 
1361, 1369, 1654a. 
National Bank of Fort Edward r. 

Washington County Nat. Bank, 

16980, 1702a. 
National Bank of Michigan v. Green, 

767. 899. 
National Bank of N. A. v. Bangs, 

1361, 1367, 1369, 1657. 
National Bank of Pittsburg v, Wheeler, 
674. 

r. Wells, 386. 
National Bank of the Republic v. City 

of St. Joseph, 1550. 
National Bank of St. Joseph v, Dakin, 

824, 855, 856. 
National Bldg. Assn. r. Ash worth, 922. 
National Butchers & D. Bank v. Hub- 
bell, 336, 69bd. 
National City Bank v. Westcott, 336, 

349a, 69Sd, 
National Commercial Bank V, Miller, 

336, 1603, 1636. 
National Eagle Bank r. Hunt, 1770a. 
National Exch. Bank v. Hartford R. 
Co., 1489, 1500, 15096, 1510, 
1513. 

r. Venneman, 850. 

r. White, 369, 843. 

r. Wilder, 1714. 
National Exch. Bank of Lexington v, 

WilgUfl, 363. 



National German-American Bank v. 

Lang, 51a. 
National Gold Bank i;. McDonald, 

1622, 1623. 
National Hudson River Bank v. K. ii 

H. R. Co., 609. 
National Imp. &. Cons. Co. r. Maiken, 

322. 
National Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 93. 

r. Goble, 1221, 1260, 1262. 
National Mechanics' Bank r. National 

BanK, 284. 
National Newark Bkg. Co. v. Second 

Nat. Bank, 472. 
National Park Bank v. Eldred, 1369. 

V. German Secy. Bank, 365, 386. 

V, Levy Bros., 1623, 1644. 

V, Ninth Nat. Bank, 1361, 1654a, 
1661. 

t\ Porter, 386a. 

17. Remsen, 795a. 

t\ Seaboard Bank, 349a. 
National Kevere Bank v, Morse, 831a. 
National Pemberton Bank t*. Longee, 
713a. 

r. Porter, 386a, 769". 
National Safe Dep., Sav. & Tr. Co. v. 

Gray, 17085r. 
National Security Bank v, McDonald, 

365. 
National Shoe & L. Bank r. Herz, 3696. 
National State Cap. Bank v. Noyes, 

358a. 
Nave !?. First Nat. Bank, 101. 

17. Richardson, 588, 953. 
Nay lor 17. Moody, 1317. 
Nazro 1?. Fuller, 1378, 1379. 
Neal i\ Coburn, 533, 1655. 

17. Erving, 296, 299. 

17. Rouse, 1250. 

17. Wilson, 713d. 

V. Wood, 1097. 

17. Wyatt, 992. 
Neale v. Turton, 354. 
Neate 17. Harting^ 13726. 
N. E. Bank v. Lewis, 1209, 1212. 
Nebecker v. Gutsinger, 852. 
Nebraska Nat. Bank 17. Ferguson, 386. 

i\ Logan, 1587. 
Needhams r. Page, 713e. 
Needles v. Needles, 254. 

17. Shafer, 1395. 
Neeley 17. Bee, 1341. 
Neff's Appeal, 1311. 
Neff 17. Horner, 1385. 
Negley 17. Lindsay, 1352a. 
Neiffer 17. Bank of Knoxville, 393. 
Neil 17. Case, 1421a. 
Neiler 17. Kelly, 1208a. 
Neill 17. Produce Co., 1731, 1734a, 1743. 
Neiman v. Beacon Tr. Co., 1615. 



ex 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



Nelson v. Brown, 1312, 1317, 1324. 

tJ. Cowing, 70, 145. 

V. Dubois, 1765, 1767. 

i;. First Nat. Bank, 561, 1468a, 
1606a, 1799. 

17. Flagg, 1312. 

V. Fotterall, 457, 586, 588, 602, 
945, 955, 959, 964. 

V, Larmer, 812. 

V. Manning, 49. 

V, Nordlinger, 1741. 

V, Stollenwerck, 680. 

V. Wellington, 833, 1185. 

17. Whittall, 112. 

V. Woodrutf, 1729, 1742. 
Neptune, Admr. v. PAxton, Recr., 418. 
Nesmith t7. Drum, 1644. 
Neuhoflf V. O'Reilly, 1708^^. 
Neumann v. Schroeder, 504. 
Nevada B^nk v. Luce, 496, 651. 
Nevins v. Bank of Lansingburgh, 1016, 
1782. 

t7. De Grand, 1415. 
New 17. Swain, 1280. 

f7. Walker, 197, 198. 
New Albany Woolen Mills v, Myers, 

728, 784. 
Newberry i;. Armstrong, 1764. 

t7. Detroit, etc.. Iron Co., 1708e. 

V, Trowbridge, 1163, 1165. 
Newcomb v. Boston, 17345. 

V, Raynor, 1303. 

V, Wood, 334. 
Newell 17. Gregg, 787. 

17. Mayberry, 1410. 

17. Salmons, 1431. 

17. Williams, 719. 
New England Mortgage Co. 17. Gay, 

802. 
New Farmers* Bank's Tr. 17. Young, 

1437. 
Newgass t7. New Orleans, 10a. 
Newhall v. Central P. R. Co., 1730, 
1730a, 1731. 

17. Clark, 517. 

17. Dunlap, 311, 411. 
Newhall v. Wyatt, 366. 
N. H. Savings Bank v. Colcord, 1324. 
New Haven County Bank 17. Mitchell, 

1052, 1056. 
New Hope D. & B. Co. 17. Perry, 646, 

1680. 
New Jersey 17. Wilson, 446. 
New London Credit Syndicate r. Lale, 

159. 
Newman i7. Curiel, 183, 857. 

17. Frost, 78, 187. 

17. Gozo, 1450. 

17. Kaufman, 1569, 1585&. 

17. Kerson, 894. 

17. King, 1376. 



Newman v, Newman, 247. 

17. Tillman et aL, 795a, 7956. 

V. Williams, 750, 762a, 767. 
New Market Savings Bank r. Gillette 
403. 

17. Hanson, 187, 573. 
New Orleans 17. Olark, 1562. 

17. Quinlan, 10a. 
New Orleans, etc. i7. Montgomery, 728, 

784, 834a. 
New Orleans Bank 17. Harper, 1152. 
New Orleans Canal v, Templeton, 728. 
New Providence v, Halsey, 1544. 
Newsom 17. Thornton, 1731, 1748. 
Newton 17. Jackson, 157. 

V, Kennedy, 1458a. 

17. Porter, 14686. 

17. Snyder, 24. 
Newton Wagon Co. i;. Dyers, 51, 1787. 
New York Bank t\ Gibson, 1636. 
New York F. Ins. Co. v. Ely, 384. 
New York, L. E. ii W. R. Co. c. Nat. 

Steamship Co., 1729a. 
New York M. I. Works r. Smith, 827, 

832a. 
New York & N. H. R. Co. i\ Schuyler, 

278, 390, 391, 1611, 1708</. 1733a. 
New York, etc., Co. v, Meyer, 1086. 

17. Selma Sav. Bank, 998. 
New York, etc., R. Co. i?. Hawks, 1674. 
New York ii V. State Bank t\ Gilson, 

19. 
New York Security ft Tr. Co. i?. Lip- 
man, 1713a. 

17. Storm, 28, 709, 1757. 
Niagara Bank r. Roosevelt, 1689. 
Niagara Dist. Bank r. Fairman, 515, 

1380, 1381, 1689. 
Niblack t\ Champeny, 1312. 

17. Park Nat. Bank, 3346, 600, 
1643. 
Nicely 17. Nat. Bank, 31, 35, 41, 53, 

54a, 62, 63. 
Nichol r. Bate, 142, 1266. 

17. Mayor of Nashville, 1523. 
Nicholas 17. Cheairs, 1299. 
NichoUs 17. Diamond, 413, 488. 

17. Lefevre, 1730a. 
Nicholas Exr. t?. Porter, 902. 
Nichols 17. Blackmore, 466, 472, 474, 
488. 

17. Cross, 1187. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 68. 

17. Goldsmith, 636, 656, 1057. 

17. Lumpkin, 195a. 

17. Nichols, 183. 

V. Norris, 1322, 1335. 

17. Pearson, 750, 759, 760, 762a. 
767. 

17. Pool, 644. 

17. Rodgers, 884. 



References are to 
paragraphe marked f. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CZl 



Nichols 17. Rnggles, 51. 

V. State, 1611a. 

V. SUte Bank, 283. 

p. Webb, 945, 967, 968, 1057. 
Nicholson v. Barnes, 1180. 

r. Combs, 1389. 

V. Gouthit, il71, 1172. 

V. Paget, 1756, 1770. 

r. Patton, 775. 

p. Revill, 1290, 1294, 1295. 

r. Sedgwick, 1698a. 
Kickerson v. Rockwell, 1186a. 

F. Sheldon, 62. 
Xicolay v. Fritachle, 1192. 
Xiemeyer v. Brooks, 1215. 
Nightingale v. Chafee, 1230. 

V. Meginnis, 1317. 

r. Withington, 227, 682. 
Nimick v. Martin, 617. 
Nimocks v. Woody, 16a, 17, 19, 550, 

551, 563. 
Nightingale r. Withington, 179. 
Nixon r. Beard, 1260, 1341. 

r. English, 1437. 

F. Palmer, 291. 
Noble F. McCiintock, 366. 

r. Walker, 753, 763, 766. 
Nobles r. Bates, 196. 
Noe r. Christie, 16a, 22. 

F. Hodges, 81. 
Noel F. Murray, 1262, 1264. 
Noell V. Kinney, 250. 
Noll F. Smith, 45a (3). 
Non-Magnetic Watch Co., 1731. 
Nonotuck Silk Co. f. Flanders, 340e. 
Nordlinger F. Nelson, 1741. 
Norfolk Nat. Bank f. Nenow, 795a, 
7955, 855, 855a. 

F. Schwenk, 759a. 
Norman F. Cole, 188. 
Norris F. Avlette, 1273. 

F. Badger, 576, 1195, 1227. 

F. Crummey, 1321. 

V. Cummings, 1318. 

F. Despard, 713a, 1060, 1070, 
1596, 1600. 

F. Langley, 808. 

F. Solomon, 73. 
Norris F. Ward, 1149. 
Nortfaam f. Liatouche, 808. 
Northampton Bank f. Kidder, 1505. 

V. Pepoon, 394. 
Northampton Nat. Bank f. Smith, 

1226. 
North Atchison Bank F. Garrettson, 
1606a. 

F. Gay, 68. 
North Bank f. Abbott, 650, 658, 1048. 
North British ft Mercantile Ins. Co. F. 

Cent. Vt. R. Co., 1739. 
North Britisb Ins. Co. f. Loyd, 1309. 



Northeastern Loan ft Tr. Co. f. Robin- 
son, 573. 
Northeastern Mort. Sec. Co. F. Case- 
bier, 834, 835. 
Northeastern Tr. Co. f. N. Y. Belting 

ft Packing Co., 1340. 
North Penn R. Co. f. Adams, 1513, 
1514, 1515. 

r. Commercial Bank, 17336. 
North River Bank v. Aymar, 280, 283, 

284. 
Northern v. Hawkins, 995. 
Northern Bank v. Porter Township, 

1543a. 
Northern Lib. Market uo. f. Kelley, 

>266. 
Northern Nat. Bank f. Lewis, 1187. 
Northrop f. Sanborn, 86, 1580. 
North Star Boot ft Shoe Co. F. Steb- 

bins, 3265, 392. 
Northumberland Bank v. McMichael, 

1636. 
Northumberland County Bank f. Eger, 

1776. 
Northup F. Cheney, 979a, 959. 
Northwestern Coal Co. r. Bowman, 

1022, 1100, 1568, 1572. 
Northwestern Life Ins. Co. f. Sturde- 

vant, 1221, 1625. 
Northwestern Nat. Bank f. Kansas 

City Bank, 69M, 1359. 
Norton f. Brownsville, 1524. 

F. Dyersburg, 1532. 

F. Eastman, 17856. 

F. Knapp, 112, 497. 

F. Lewis, 616, 1048. 

r. Norton, 800a. 

r. Paragon Oil Co., 1268. 

F. Pickering, 1077. 

F. Rose, 5. 

F. Seymour, 361, 1613. 

F. Waite, 832. 
Noteboom f. Watkins, 831c. 
Noteholders f. Bank of Tennessee, 

1499a, 1669, 1695. 
Nott F. Beard, 953. 

«. Thomson, 248. 
Norvell v. Hudgins, 789, 795. 
Norwich Bank f. Hyde, 86. 
Norwich Town Co., In re, 1616. 
Novelty Mfg. Co. f. Connell, 1260. 
Nowland v. Martin, 1339. 
Noxon F. De Wolf, 728. 
Noyes f. Landon, 724a, 824. 

r. Price, 1687. 

r. Smith, 163. 
Nugent r. Laduke, 265. 
Nuler F. Kelly, 1708a. 
Nunez t*. iJautel, 45. 
Nunnemaker r. Lanier, 1590. 
Nurre f. Chittenden, 710, 713e. 



cxu 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Nuso Vaumer t*. Becker, 369o. 
Nutt 17. Morse, 24. 
Nutter v. Stover, 827. 
Nutting V. Burked, 265. 
Nye V. Chace, 186. 

O. 

Oakey v. Beauvais, 635. 

V. Wilcox, 137». 
Oakley v. Ooddeen, 799. 
Oaks V. Miller, 17856. 

t7. Weller, 1786. 
Oaste V. Taylor, 6. 
Oates V. Nat. Bank, 10, 90, 763a, 768, 

827, 1317. 
Obbard v. Betham, 201. 
Ober t7. ' Gkiliego, 834a. 

r. Goodrich, 670, 728, 1199. 
Oberle v. Schmidt, 812. 
O'Brien t?. Gilchrist, 1729. 

V. Smith, 1590. 
O'Brien ei al., Recrs. v. Grant, Beer., 

17126, 1712c. 
O'Callaghan v. Thomond, 883. 
Ocean Nat. Bank v, Carll, 1057. 

V. Fant, 833. 

t\ Williams, 581, 587, 926, 934. 
Ocean Tow Boat Co. v. Ship Ophelia, 

1623. 
Ocoee Bank v, Hughes, 929. 
O'Connell v. McQueen, 1248. 
O'Conner v. Hurley, 1260. 
Odam V, Beard, 719. 
Odd Fellows v. First Nat. Bank, 299, 

387a. 
Odell V, Carpenter, 1296. 
O'Dell V. Comack, 362a. 

V. Gallup, 1419. 

V. Gray, la. 
Oddie V. Nat. City Bank, 1621. 
Odiorne v, Sargent, 155. 

V. Woodman, 725, 746. 
Ogden V. Astor, 350. 

V. Conley, 1049. 

r. Dobbin, 656, 991, 992. 

V. Marchand, 322, 769. 

r. Pattee, 1489. 

V. Saunders, 614, 616, 671, 672, 
874. 
Ogilby V. Wallace, 1186. 
Ogilvie V. Moss, 267. 
Ogle V, Graham, 1384. 
Oglesby v. Steamboat Co., 1148. 
O'Hara v. Haas, 1343. 
Ohio V. Frank, 1458a, 1514. 
Ohio Ins. Co. v. Edmonson, 866. 
Ohio Life & T. Co. v. Debolt, 1525. 
Ohm t?. Young, 76. 
Oil Well Supply Co. v, Exch. Nat. 

Bank, 571. 
O'Keef V, Dunn, 724a. 



Okie r. Spencer, 1329. 
Olcott r. Rathbone, 1195, 1266, 1266o, 
1623. 

V, Supervisors, 1521, 1523. 
Oldham v. Brown, 1338a. 
Olendorf v. Swartz, 1110. 
Oliver v. Andros, 672. 

V. Bank of Tennessee, 1074, 1076. 
Olmstead r. Winstead, 1680a. 
OIney r. Chadsey, 395. 
O.vey 1". Jackson, 833, 1260. 
Omaha Nat. Bank t*. Walker, 1782. 
Omohundro v. Crump, 56, 87. 
Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank, 14916. 
O'Neill v. Magner, 1215. 

V, O'Neill, 1478. 
Onondaga County Bank r. Bates, 680, 
584. 

t?. De Puy, 367, 936. 
Ontario Bank v. Worthington, 827, 

8310, 984. 
Orchard v. School Dist., 1527. 
Ord V, Portal, 1193. 
Ordeman v. Lawson, 1764. 
Orear v. McDonald, 1076, 1078, 1082. 
Oregon v. Jennings, 1537. 
Organ Co. v, Boyle, 814. 
Oridge v. Sherborne, 599, 617, 621. 
Oriental Bank r. Blake, 1000, 1177, 

1179. 
Oriental Commercial Bank, Ex parte, 

7266. 
Orleans v. Pratt, 1537. 

t*. Whittemore, 1180. 
Ormsbee r. Howe, 795a. 
Ormsby v. Kendall, 306. 
Orono Bank r. Wood, 963. 
O'Rourke r. O'Rourke, 69, 891a. 
Orr V. Lacey, 1217. 

t\ Magginnis, 454, 926, 940, 942, 
1081. 
Orrick r. Colston, 144, 147, 666, 709, 
713a, 843. 

t/\ Durham, 8346. 
Ort t?. Fowler, 139, 850. 
Orvis v. Kimball, 231. 
Osborn v. Adams Co., 1622. 

r. Bryce, 1437. 

t?. Doherty, 185. 

V. Hawley, 61. 

t\ Lawson, 1761, 1769, 1788. 

V, Low, 1317. 

r. McClelkind, 782, 784a, 1200. 

V, Moncure, 787a, 1209. 

V. Nicholson, 170, 172. 

i\ Bobbins, 1306a. 

V. Rogers, 1210. 
Osgood r. Artt, 690, 742. 

V. Pearson, 103. 
O'Shea r. Collier, 194. 
Osmond t\ Fitauroy, 211. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXlll 



Oswego Bank r. Knower^ 1107. 
Other V. Iveson, 1298. 
Otis p. Galium, 734a. 

r. Hiissey, 1149. 
Otsego County Bank t*. Warren, 955, 

1140. 
Otto V. Bedden, 1118. 
Ouldfl r. Harrison, 725, 1436. 
Onlton r. Savings Inst., 334. 
Outhouse V. Outhouse, 1468a, 1469. 
Outhwaite p. LunUey, 1376, 1377. 
Overman r. Uoboken City Bank, 491, 

1619. 
Overseer of the Poor r. Bank of Vir- 
ginia, 326c, 336. 
Overton r. Bolton, 868, 1458a. 

V. Hardin, 750, 751, 753. 

r. Matthews, 62, 143, 1376, 1401. 

r. Tyler, 1, 61. 
Owen V, Barrow, 1230. 

V. Branch Bank, 1725. 

V. Hall, 1411. 

r. Homan, 1322. 

r. Iglanor, 513, 514. 

V. La vine, 514. 

r. Moody, 883. 

r. Van Uster, 488, 489. 
Owens r. Dickinson, 248. 
Owenson t*. Morse, 1272, 1672a, 1679a. 
Ow^ings V. A mot, 1376. 

r. Baker, 710, 713a. 

r. Speed, 388. 
Oxford Bank r. Haynes, 1787, 1788. 

P. Lewis, 1328. 
Oxford Iron Co. t*. Spradley, 200. 
Oxnard p. Vamum, 90. 
Ozanna p. Haber, 196. 

P. 

Pace p. Robertson, 1342. 
Pacific Bank v. AUtchell, 1221, 1222. 
Pacific Guano Co. v. HoUeman, 1187. 
Pacific Imp. Co. p. .City of Clarksdall, 

420. 
Pack p. Thomas, 81, 1586. 
Packard p. Lyon, 637, 1115. 

p. Nye, 406. 

r. Richardson, 1764. 
Packet Co. p. Rogers, 1740. 
Packwood r. Grindley, 801. 
Paddon v. Taylor, 831c. 
Pagan p. Wylie, 1409. 
Page P. Cook, 45a. 

p. Gilbert, 982. 

r. Morrell, 143. 

r. Newman, 112. 

p. Page, 898, 1478. 

r. Prentice, 1031. 

r. Warner, 1460. 

r. Webster, 649, 650, 1317. 

Vol. I — viii 



Paige p. Carter, 83. 

p. Stone, 294, 305. 
Pain P. Packard, 133i^. 
Paine p. Cent. Vt. R. Co., 783. 

p. Noelke, 713c. 

p. Ringold, 816. 
Palfrey v. Baker, 1274. 
Palmer p. Carpenter, 1478. 

p. Courtney, 672. 

p. Dodge, 370, 373. 

p. Fahnestock, 54a. 

p. Field, 94, 361. 

p. Grant, 94, 1780. 

p. Hughes, 643. 

p. Hummer, 44. 

p. Logan, 1471. 

p. Marshall, 769. 

P. Minor, 199a. 

P. Nassau Bank, 693, 812, 1191. 

p. Poor, 63, 857, 1385. 

p. Pratt, 41. 

V, Richards, 827. 

p. Sargent, 850. 

p. Stephens, 74, 688a. 

p. Ward, 47. 

V. Whitney, 812, 

p. Yarrington, 867. 
Panhandle Nat. Bank r. Alexander et 

al., 812. 
Pannell p. Hurley, 1612a. 
Pape p. Westacott, 1623. 
Papple p. Day, 185. 
Parcel p. Barnes, 422. 
Parcher v. Saco Sav. Inst., 24. 
Pardee p. Fish, 56, 1702, 1703, 1706, 

1707a. 
Pardoe p. Iowa State Nat. Bank, 207. 
Parham p. Murphee, 1197. 
Parham Sewing Machine Co. v. Brock, 

1260. 
Paris r. Moe, 1230a. 
Paris Nat. Bank v. Nickell, 1406. 
Parish p. Stone, 25, 201. 
Park P. Brooks, 182. 

p. Ross, 443. 
Park Bank p. Watson, 827, 831c. 
Parke p. Smith, 1217. 
Parker p. Burgess, 308. 

p. Carter, 179. 

p. City of Syracuse. 16a (4), 21. 

p. Cousins, 370, 373, 1297, 1300, 
1300a. 

p. Davis, 1248. 

p. Enslow, 183. 

p. Gordon, 464a, 1038. 

p. Greele, 561, 601. 

p. Kellog, 638. 

V. Leigh, 545. 

p. Macomber, 370a, 372a, 373, 683. 

p. Marston, 24. 

p. McDowell, 792. 



ex IV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Parker v. Nations, 1305. 

V. Pitts, 70. 

17. Reddick, 470, 605, 1586, 1587. 

V, Roser, 1661. 

V, Stroud, 609, 644. 

17. Sutton, 792. 
Parkersburg Nat. Bank v. Als, 1653. 
Parkhurst t\ Vail, 713c, 1316, 1759, 

1760, 
Parkin r. Carruthers, 353, 369a. 

V, Moon, 728. 
Parks V. Brooks, 1215. 

f. Duke, 32. 

V. Hunter, 869. 

V. Ingram, 1335a. 

V. Nichols, 534. 

r. Smith, 1226, 1259. 
Parmelee v. Lawrence, 1565. 

V. Wil.iams, 532, 1312. 
Pamell v. Hurley, 1612a. 

V. Price, 1319. 
Parr v, Jewell, 726. 

V. vb:iiason, 760. 
Parrott t7. Colby, 1266a. 
Parry t?. Spikes, 1764. 
Parshley v. Heath, 1092a. 
Parsons v. Alexander, 197. 

V. Frost, 185. 

V. Harold, 1338. 

V. Jackson, 52, 1496&, 1506a. 

V. Phipps, 1217. 

V. Randolph, 196. 
Partridge v. Badger, 382, 394. 

17. Bank of England, 1570, 1651, 
1710a. 

r. Colby, 94, 1388. 

17. Court, 268. 

17. Davis, 688, 1781. 

17. Stockton, 250. 

17. Williams, 824. 
Passmore 17. North, 85. 
Passumpsic Bank 17. Qoss, 854. 
Pate 17. Gray, 1425, 1429. 

17. McClure, 1148, 1151. 
Pates 17. St Clair, 1491. 
Patillo 17. Mayer, 532. 
Paton 17. Coit, 198, 808. 

17. Lent, 1012. 
Patience 17. Townley, 1060, 1068. 
Pa till 17. Alexander, 970, 971, 1035. 
Patrick 17. Beazley, 1005a, 1014. 
Pattee 17. McCrillis, 963. 
Patten 17. Ash, 1646, 1648. 

17. Gleason, 790. 

17. Merchants* Ins. Co., 802. 

17. Moses, 1191. 

17. Pearson, 717. 
Patterson 17. Bank, 191. 

17. Fagan, 1418. 

17. Hardacre, 167, 1483. 

V, Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 1729a. 



Patterson t*. Marine Bank, 1612. 

17. McNeely, 1385. 

t\ Poindexter, 35, 1703, 1705. 

17. Syracuse Nat. Bank, 286a. 

17. Todd, 611, 669. 

t\ Wright, 787, 1422, 1437. 
Pattison 17. Hull, 1250, 1251. 

17. Supervisors, 1524. 
Patton V. Cooper, 1326. 

17. Melville, 101. 

17. Shanklin, 1317. 

17. State Bank, 1482, 1695. 
Patts 17. Bell, 221. 

17. Berry, 318. 
Paul 17. Draper, 1611a. 

V. Rider, 703. 
Paulette 17. Brown, 829a. 
Paulman 17. Claycomb, 1230. 
Pauly 17. Murray, 86, 707, 1760. 
Pavey i?. Stauffer, 252, 260, 741, 769, 

850. 
Paxton t7. State, 1701, 1702a. 
Payne 17. Albany City Nat. Bank, 698d. 

17. Bensley, 824, 827. 

r. Caswell, 1458a. 

17. Clark, 86. 

17. Commercial Bank, 1311, 131 C, 
1328. 

17. Cutler, 831c. 

17. Elliot, 1708a. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 271, 79.5a. 

r. Flournoy, 268. 

v. Gardner, 1707a. 

V. Jenkins, 36. 
Payne r. Raubinek, 195a. 
Payne, Exr. t\ Long, 1375, 1397. 
Paysant 17. Ware, 83. 
Peabody i?. Harvey, 1157. 

17. Peters, 1437. 

r. Rees, 726a, 803. 
Peabody Ins. Co. v, Wilson, 643, 644, 

950, 959*, 960, 961, 962, 991, 1005, 

1039, 1057, 1151. 
Peacock 17. Purcell, 828, 993, 1276, 

1277a. 
Peak 17. Ellicott, 336. 
Pearce t*. Austin, 1185, 1200. 

r. Davis, 1623, 1646, 1648. 

17. Dill, 336. 

17. Langfit, 1005a, 1054. 

17. Madison, etc., R, Co., 377. 

17. Wren, 1765. 
Pearl 17. McDowell, 212. 
Pearsall 17. Dwight, 866, 867, 883. 
PearsoU v. Chapin, 1352a. 
Pearson v. Bank of Metropolis, 661. 

17. Brown, 177, 179. 

17. Crallan, 1015, 1033, 1034, 1057, 
1457. 

t*. Cummings, 123. 

V. Garrett, 41. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



TABLE OF GASE8. 



CXV 



Pearson v. Hardin, 1351. 

V. Pearson, 179. 

F. Stoddard, 76, 716. 
Pease v. Cole. 358a. 

17. Cornish, 430, 433. 

V. Dwight, 706, 1404. 

V. Gloahec, 1750a. 

V. Hirst, 741, 1197. 

r. Landauer, 23. 

17. Morgan, 287. 

V. Pease, 203. 

r. Tilt, 1311. 

r. Warner, 326, 675. 

V. Warren, 1230a. 
Peaslee v. Robins, 93, 636. 
Peasley t?. Boatwright, 32, 162. 
Peavey v. Hovey, 1228. 
Peck V, Burweil, 189. 

V. Cochran, 505. 

f?. Dyer, 812, 834o. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 698d. 

V. Hozier, 886. 

p. Mayo, 901, 918, 920. 

V. Begina, 196. 
Pecker t?. Sawyer, 1217. 
Peckham v. Oilman, 713a. 
Peaen v. Moore, 202. 
Peele i?. Northcote, 514. 
Peet V. Zanders, 1121. 
Peets r. Bratt, 63. 
Peetseh p. Somers, 776. 
Peigh V. Huffman, 855. 
Pekin r. Reynolds, 1479. 
Pelly 17. Naylor, 815. 

V. Onderdonk, 815a. 
Pelton V. Lumber Co., 1378, 1383. 
Pender v. Kelly, 863. 
Pendergast v. Bank of Stockton, 1708d. 
Pendleton r. Bank of Kentucky, 392. 

r. Knickerbocker, 598, 599. 

r. Smisseart, 1200. 
Pendleton Co. v. Amy, 1520, 1523, 

1537, 1545, 1547. 
Penkwil v. Connell, 298. 
Penn r. Edwards, 1199. 
r. Hamlet, 148. 
V. Harrison, 1678. 
Penn Bank r. Farmers' Bank, 326d. 
Pennell v. Deffell, 336. 
Pennes v. Ely, 688. 
Penniman r. Alexander, 39. 

17. Meigs, 876. 
Pennington r. Baehr, 74, 1492a. 

r. Gittings, 179. 
Pennock v. Coe, 1491a. 
Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Con- 

noughy, 305. 
Pennsylvania Bank v. Prankish, 831a. 
Pennsylyania R. Co. v. Shay, 849a. 
Penny r. Graves, 81. 

c. Innes, 95a, 705, 714a, 1202. 



Penobscot R. Co. v. Mays, 1222. 
Pentz 17. Simeon, 248. 

17. Stanton, 303, 305, 311. 
People 17. Baker, 1623, 1648. 
17. Baird, 1350. 
17. Bank of Dansville, 336. 
r. Batche.lor, 1566. 
17. Bostwick, 856. 
17. Brigham, 1346. 
17. City Bank, 334. 
17. Cole, 1344. 
17. Crockett, 1708a. 
17. Dickie, 1344. 
17. Dole, 1344, 1347. 
17. Elliott, 1345. 
17. Garner, 1336a. 
r. Gates, 122. 
t\ Getchell, 1348. 
V, Gray, 422, 427. 
17. Halden, 1555a. 
17. Hall, 427. 
V. Hayes, 195. 
17. Howell, 1648. 
17. Johnson, 427. 
17. Kemp, 1567. 
c. Laird, 1344. 
17. Lee, 1346. 
17. Lundin, 1345. 
17. Lawrence, 1556, 1557. 
17. McDermott, 108. 
17. Mead, 1495, 1552, 1555a. 
17. Merchants' Bank, 336. 
17. Mitchell, 1349, 1350, 1557. 
17. North River Bank, 1003. 
17. Remington, 16a. 
17. Sanders, 1344. 
17. State Treasurer, 1685, 1686. 
r. St. Nicholas' Bank, 326a, 337, 

1425, 1601a, 1636. 
17. Stupp, 427. 
17. bup. of Eldorado Co., 422, 427, 

1536. 
17. Tazewell Co., 1497, 1535. 
17. Township Board of Salem, 1523. 
17. Warfielcl, 1335a. 
17. Waynesville, 1536. 
17. Weant, 1335a. 
17. Whiteman, 1344, 1350. 
People ex rel. Standifer v. Hamill, 

1538. 
People's Bank i7. Bogart, 731, 736, 
736a. 
17. Brooke, 656, 952. 
17. Gridley, 1708e. 
17. Jefferson, 337, 698d. 
17. Keech, 999a. 
r. Le Grand, 3266. 
17. Lutterloh, 635, 640. 
17. Pearson, 1317. 
17. Pearsons, 1332. 
17. Scako, 960, 962, 1003. 



CXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



People's Bank v. School Dist., 337. 
People's Nat. BanK v, IVeeman's Nat. 

Bank, 347. 
People's Sav. Bank v. Capps, 1654a. 

r. Gifford, 195a, 1623. 
Peoria Mfg. Co. f. HuflF, 189, 1332, 

1335. 
Peoria R. Co. v. Neill, 533. 
Peoria, etc., R. Co. i\ Thompson, 834. 

V. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 1741. 
Pepoon V. Stagg, 39, 1395. 
Percival v, Frampton, 165, 183a. 
Perez r. Bank of Key West, 1228. 
Perfect t?. Murgrave, 1336. 
Perkins' Case, 76, 76. 
Perkins v. Barstow, 173a, 716, 12156, 

r. Catlin, 1765. 

17. Challis, 796. 

17. Clements, 1184. 

V, Commonwealth, 1346. 

V, Camming, 204. 

r. Franklin Bank, 622, 633, 1671. 

V, Hawkins, 1428. 

V. Lymans, 196. 

V, Prout, 816. 

r. White, 789a, 1113. 
Perkins Bros. v. Gumbel, 834. 
Perkins' Wind Mill, etc., Co. v, TUl- 

man, 1373a. 
Perley v, Perley, 164. 
Perot V. Cooper, 695. 
Perreira v. Jopp, 116, 463. 
Perrin v. Broad well, 1304. 

V, Keene, 370. 
Perring v. Hone, 361, 1390. 
Perry v. Barrett, 1760. 

V, Bigelow, 50a, 149. 

17. Bray, 688. 

17. Crammonds, 64. 

V. Friend, 713d. 

V, Green, 607, 609. 

V, Hadnett, 1338. 

17. Harrington, 513. 

V. Mays, 1437. 

17. Taylor, 1458a. 
Persifull i7. Pineville Banking Co., 

1327. 
Persons v. Hawkins, 81a. 

17. Kruger, 996a, 998, 1054, 1056. 
Peru V. l?'arnsworth, 56. 
Peru Plow & Wheel Co. i;. Ward, 1401. 
Peruvian R. Co. r. Thames & Mersey 

Mut. Ins. Co., 380. 
Peters v. Anderson, 1252. 

17. Bamhill, 1339. 

17. Beverley, 1260. 

17. Gay, 790. 

17. Hobbs, 1023, 1071. 
Petersen v. Hubbard, 497a. 

17. Union Nat. Bank, 1696. 



Peterson v. Mayor of New York, 317. 

17. Stoughton btate Bank, 62. 
Petingale ff. Barker, 240. 
Petit 17. Benson, 608, 516. 
Peto 17. Reynolds, 96. 
Petrie i?. Feeter, 1309. 

V. Hannay, 200. 
Petrie, Matter of, 316. 
Pettee 17. Prout, 1200, 1431, 1437. 
Pettilon 17. Noble, 834. 
Petty 17. Douglas, 13176. 

17. Fleispel, 86. 

17. Hinman, 758, 778. 
Peymen 17. Bowery Bank, 1425. 
Peyser i?. Cole, 62. 
Peyton 17. Compress Co., 742. 

17. Hallett, 16a, 21, 23. 

17. Harman, 76. 
Pfiel 1?. Vanbatenberg, 1206, 1227. 
Phelan t?. Moss, 773, 775, 779a, 1407, 

1409. 
Phelps 17. Alfred Bank, 1536. 

17. Borland, 305. 

17. Church, 1777. 

17. Mayers, 156. 

17. Moorman, 48. 

17. >Jorthrup, 505. 

17. Phelps, 179. 

17. Stocking, 1005, 1021, 1037. 

V. Town, 66. 

17. Vischer, 709, 713e. 

17. Yates, 1495. 

17. Younger, 196. 
Phetteplaoe v. Bucklin, 1226. 
Philadelphia 17. Field, 1556. 

17. Stewart, 1262. 
Philadelphia Bank r. Newkirk, 64. 
Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 384. 
Philadelphia Nat. BanK 17. Dowd, 336. 
Philadelphia A, R. R. Co. 17. Fidelity & 
Tr. Co., 1509, 1513. 

17. Smith, 1509, 1513. 
Philadelphia R. Co. r. Knight, 1513. 
Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 17. Northam, 

1738. 
Philipe 17. Haberlee, 1007. 
Philler i?. Patterson, 1712o. 

17. Yardley, 1712o. 
Phillips V. Alderson, 1016. 

17. Astberg, 590. 

17. Bullard, 1623. 

17. Cripps, 1401. 

17. Dipps, 1092. 

17. Dugan, 1247. 

17. Frost, 497. 

17. Gifford, 168. 

17. Gould, 972, 983. 

17. Knight, 300. 

17. Lumber Co,. 274. 

17. Im. Thurn., 908. 

t*. Inthun, 136. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f . 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXVll 



Phillipsi V. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 129, 
140. 

r. ^L & N. Bank, 392. 

V. McCurdy, 930, 1157. 

V. Meilly, 81b. 

1?. Paget, 227. 

V. Plato, 1753. 

V. Poindexter, 964. 

p. Preston, 187, 703. 

V. Thurn, 528. 
Phllliskirk v. Pluckwell, 254, 256, 686, 

1184 
Philpott r. Bryant, 454, 591, 1316. 

r. Jones, 1256. 
Phinney r. Baldwin, 1458a. 
Phipps V. Harding, 868, 895, 899, 1171, 
1172. 

V. Milbury Bank, 331. 

V. Tanner, 86. 
Pluenix Bank r. Huasey, 9, 926. 

V. Risley, 334. 
Phcenix Ins. Co. r. Allen, 472, 1272, 
1276. 

r. Church, 831c, 1266c. 

r. Gray, 472. 
Phoenix Trust Co. v. Landis, 183, 1326. 
Phipson r. Kneller, 1094, 1104. 
Pickard P. Bankes, 1687. 
Pickens f. Poet, 800a, 803, 812, 1537, 

1542. 
Picker v. Harlan, 1177. 
Pickering r. Cording, 130. 

V. Cameron, 18. 
Pickett p. Stewart, 1195. 
Pickin V. Graham, 1158. 
Pickle r. People's Nat. Bank, 1618, 

16360, 1647, 1663. 
Pi<^lay P. Starr, 180. 
Picquet p. Curtis, 5V 6, 643. 
Piedmont Bank r. Hatcher, 815. 
Pier V. Heinrichshoffen, 654a, 1068a. 
Pierce p. Merrill, 1769. 

r. Boston Sav. Bank, 24. 

V, Cate, 1144, 1210. 

p. Drake, 1269. 

r. Goldsberry, 1317a. 

r. Indseth, 879, 908, 945, 947. 

p. Kennedy, 713c. 

V. Ribbee, 196. 

p. Kittredge, 504. 

p. Pendar, 1005. 

V. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 1741. 

V. Strathers, 1030. 

V. United States, 440. 

p. Whitney, 1109. 
Piercy p. Picrcy, 1391, 1418. 
Piersol p. Grimes, 1373a. 
Pierson v. Dunlap, 503, 552, 554. 

r. Hutchinson, 1475, 1482. 

r. Wallace, 1672. 
Pike P. Irrin, 568, 569. 



Pike p. Street, 717, 720a. 
Pilkinton p. Commissioners of Claims, 
1244. 

P. Woods, 449. 
Pillans p. Van Mierop, 176, 529, 553, 

567. 
Pillow p. Hardeman, 1000. 

p. Helm, 12816. 

p. Roberts, 948. 
Pilmer p. Branch Bank, 56. 
Pimental p. Marques, 1321, 1336. 
Pinard p. Klockman, 115. 
Pinckney p. Keyler, 1428. 
Pindall p. Bank of Marietta, 1250. 

p. N. W. Bank, 1675. 
Pindar p. Barlow, 145. 
Pine p. Smith, 787a, 894. 
Piner r. Clary, 599, 605, 929. 
Pinkerton P. Bailey, 728. 

p. Manchester R. Co., 1708e. 
Pinkham p. Macy, 983. 
Pinkney p. Hall, 6, 488. 
Pinners Case, 1289. 
Pinnes p. Ely, 688c. 
Pintard p. Tackington, 1472, 1484. 
Pioneer Fuel Co. p. McBrier, 1738. 
Pirkle p. Chaniblee, 1338. 
Pitcher p. Barrows, 354. 
Pitkin P. Clayton, 741. 
Pitman v. Breckenridge, 970. 

p. Crawford, 50. 

p. Kentner, 306, 402, 408. 
Pitt p. Chappelow, 242. 

p. PuBsord, 1340, 1341. 

p. Smith, 2i4. 
Pitts p. Foglesong, 827, 830, 831a. 

p. Keyser, 1198. 
Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. r. Lynde, 33, 

800a, 854, 1491a, 1506a. 
Plain P. Roth, 1252. 
Plankinton P. Gorman, 1311. 

p. Hilderbrand, 1708a. 
Plant p. Voeglin, 859. 
Planters' Bank p. Bradford, 1032. 

p. Douglass, 532. 

p. Housen, 719a. 

p. Keese, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1636. 

p. Markham, 601. 

p. Merrit, 1636. 

p. Sharp, 385. 

P. Union Bank, 200. 

p. White, 1000. 
Planters* Bank, etc. p. Ervin, 387. 

p. Evans, 128, 668. 
Planters' Fertilizer & Mfg. Co. P. 

Elder, 1729a. 
Planters' Ins. Co. p. Tunstall, 748a. 
Planters' Rice Mill Co. v. Merchants* 

Nat. Bank, 1714. 
Planters & Merchants' Bank v, 

Goetter, 751. 



CXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked %. 



Plasterstein v. Hoes, 24. 
Piatt V. Beebe, 183a. 

V. Brake, 983. 

V. Jerome, 861. 

t?. Koehler, 357, 369. 

V, Sauk County Bank, 56. 

17. Smith, 1383. 

t7. Snipes, 174. 
Platzer ». Norris, 73. 
Plets V. Johnson, 130, 139. 
Plock V. Cobb, 437a, 441, 1400, 1500, 

1506a. 
Plummer t\ Farmers' Bank, 859. 

t?. Lyman, 566. 
Plyler v, Elliot, 1385. 
Podmore v. Sav. Inst., 24. 
Poindexter t?. Greenhow, 448. 
Pogue t;. Clark, 94. 
Poirier v. Morris, 827, 1192. 
Polhill V, Walter, 64, 65, 307, 362, 485. 
Police Jury v, Britton, 420, 422. 
Polk V. Spinks, 1064. 
Po kinghorne v. Elliot, 713a. 
Pollard V, Bowen, 1586, 1600. 

V, Herries, 54, 1453. 

V, Huff, 1781. 

9. Reardon, 1727. 
Pollard V. Vinton, 1733. 
Pollock V, Simmons Bros., 832. 

r. Bradbury, 72 L 

17. Glassel, 34. 

V, Helm, 1797. 
Polo Mfg. Co. V, Parr, 151. 
Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 879. 

t?. Rice, 835a, 1C666, 1267. 

V. Tanner, 1313, 1329. 
Po pton V, Cooper Union, 1523a. 
Poncin v. Furth, 812. 
Pond V, Underwood, 1615. 

V. Waterloo Agricultural Works, 
775. 
Pons V, Kelly, 1082. 
Poock V. Lafayette Bank, 386a. 
Pool v. Anderson, 5, 713e, 10926,1095a. 

V. Carhart, 16a. 
Poole V. Dicas, 580. 

r. Rice, 305, 1260. 

t?. Tolleson, 611. 
Pooley V. Harradine, 1334, 1336, 1337. 
Poore V, Magruder, 284. 
Poorman v. Mills, 1195, 1703. 
Pope V. Askew, 1219. 

V, Bank of Albion, 392, 1261, 
1606a, 1610a. 

r. Burnset, 119. 

V. Hanke, 197, 808, 867. 

V. Huth, 23, 513. 

I?. Linn, 69, 70. 
Poplewell V. Wilson, 108, 186. 
Popley V, Ashlin, 736, 1269. 
Porter t?. City of Jacksonville, 10a. 



Porter t?. City of Janesrille, 99, 1496a. 

V. Cumings, 287. 

V. Cushman, 574, 694a, 1230o. 

V, Havers, 196. 

17. Jones, 196. 

V, Judson, 1116. 

V, Kemball, 1094, 1095a. 

V, Neckervis, 687, 1429. 

17. Pittsburg Steel Co., 804. 

17. Porter, 88. 

V, Talcott, 1264. 

V. Thom, 654, 1149, 1150, 1162, 
1165, 1166, 1168. 

V, Waltz, 710. 

V, Woods, 303. 
Porteous v, Muir, 80. 
Porthouse v. Parker, 1086. 
Portland, etc., R. Co. t\ Hartford, 

1551. 
Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 713, 

7136, 1092a. 
Posey V. Decatur Bank, 392, 508, 654, 

1478. 
Potter r. Merchants' Bank, 392. 

». Rayworth, 1110, 1158. 

v. Sheets, 174a. 

17. Stransky, 748. 

V, Tallman, 922. 

V, Tyler, 663. 
Pottlitzer t\ Wesson, 1289. 
Potts 17. Blackwell, 834a. 

17. Coleman, 1228. 

17. Mayer, 831c. 

r. Read, 6986, 699. 
Poucher v. Scott, 1646. 
Povall 17. Danville Cigar Mfg. Co., 

1590. 
Powell f. Bank, 1376. 

r. Charless, 1299, 1300. 

r. Commonwealth, 1344. 

V. Duff, 142. 

r. Feeley, 125. 

V. Hogue, 1429. 

V. Hurt, 264. 

r. Jones, 506. 

17. Manning, 45a, 46. 

r. Monnier, 14, 66, 552. 

r. Patison, 833. 

i\ Roach, 1475. 

r. Waters, 65, 630, 726, 751, 790, 
793, 1190, 1326. 
Power V. Bumcranz, 17856. 

17. Finnie, 698. 

t\ First Nat. Bank, 342. 

17. Hathaway, 884. 

17. Silberstein, 1313. 
Powers r. Briggs, 403. 

1?. French, 175. 

V. Lynch, 678. 

r. Neeson, 724. 

17. Provident Ins. Co., 24a (3). 



References are to 
paragraphs marked }. 



TASLE OF CASES. 



CXIX 



Poydras v, Delam«re« 23. 
Prall r. Tilt, 1708^. 
Prather v. Gammon, 13176. 
Pratt t'. Beaupre, 418. 

r. Chase, 875, 1283, 1331. 

r. Coman, 183a, 831c. 

V. Foote, 1266a, 1621. 

V. Parkman, 1731. 

r. Topeka, 1188. 
Prajne v. Milwaukee, 1458a. 
Prehn r. Royal Bank of Liverpool, 

1449. 
Prentice v. Zane, 803, 828. 
Prentiss r. Banielson, 1143. 

r. Graves, 828. 

r. Savage, 879. 921. 

V. Sinclair, 369a, 3696. 
Presbj r. Thomas, 358a, 365, 367, 999. 
Prescott r. Flinn, 290, 296. 

V. Hixon, 80, 403. 

r. Hull, 740. 

F. Ward, 187a. 
Prescott Bank v. Caverly, 242, 466, 

472, 675, 719. 
Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 69, 1181. 
Press Co. v. City Bank, 197, 810. 
Preston v. Dunham, 47. 

r. Ellington, 719. 

V. Gould, 710. 

V. Hull, 148, 1496a, 1499. 

r. Jackson, 206. 

r. Mo., etc.. Lead Co., 387. 

r. Morris, 834. 

V. Whitney, 51. 
Prestwick r. Marshall, 252, 681. 
Prettyman r. Supervisors, 1536a. 

r. Tazewell Co., 1497, 1523, 1524, 
1536. 
Price r. Barker, 1295. 

V. Cannon, 1289. 

V. Dime Sav. Bank, 1311, 13176. 

r. Dunlap, 1481, 1484. 

r. Edmunds, 1319, 1335, 1336. 

r. Horton, 1342. 

V. Jones, 46, 50. 

V. Keen, 174. 

r. Lavender, 713e, 715, 716. 
^v. Neal, 533, 1225. 
*t?. Page, 898. 

t?. Price, 1260, 1269, 1272, 1476. 

r. Taylor, 402. 

V. Teal, 54. 

V. Torrinffton, 1057. 

V. Trusdell, 703. 

V. Wisconsin Co., 1747a. 

p. Young, 591, 1036, 1111. 
Price County Bank v. McKenzie, 1311. 
Prideanx v. Collier, 1075, 1107, 1163. 

r. Criddle, 1599. 
Pridgen r. Andrews, 1458a. 
Pridgeon v. Cox, 502. 



Priest t\ Wateon, 1305, 1311. 

Prigeon r. Smith, 170. 

Prim V. Mcintosh, 742. 

Prince v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1733. 

V. Brunatte, 242, 681. 
Pring t\ Clarkson, 1328. 
Pringle v. Phillips, 775, 814. 
Prins t;. Lumber Co., 795. 
Pritchard v. Norton, 865. 

f?. Norwood, 1468. 

r. Smith, 1268. 
Proctor r. Baldwin, 62, 827. 

r. Cole, 778. 

17. Sears, 233. 

t?. Webber, 403. 

V. Whitcomb, 792. 
Produce Bank r. Bach, 185. 
Prompton r. Cooper Union, 1523a, 

1537. 
Proseus r. Porter, 16126. 
Provident Trust Co. t?. Mercer, 1, 15, 

20, 68, 1537. 
Provines c. Wilder, 1316. 
Prouty V. Wilson, 1321. 
Protection Ins. Co. t?. Hill, 47. 
Pruyne v. Milwaukee, 1458a. 
Pryce r. Jordan, 1200. 
Pryor v. Storke, 790. 
Puffer V, Smith, 849. 
Puget de Bras v. Forbes, 174, 178. 
Pugh r. Moore, Hyams & Co., 305. 
Pullen t\ Chase, 1458. 

V. Shaw, 1420. 

V. Ward, 834, 835. 
Pulley V. Pass, 1340. 
Pulsifer v, Hotchkiss, 203. 
Purcell r. Allemong, 1568, 1586, 1587, 

1596, 1636. 
Purchase v. Mattison, 792, 1049, 1105, 

1596. 
Purdy V, Lansing, 1544. 
Purviance v. Jones, 63. 
Puryear v. McGavock, 200. 
Putnam r. Crymes, 105. 

V, Dike, 884. 

t?. Lewis, 1267, 1272, 1273. 

V. Schuyler, 1309. 

V. Sullivan, 143, 147, 843, 847, 
1144. 

V, Tash, 1758. 
Putnam Nat. Bank v. Snow, 504, 560. 
Putney i\ Farnham, 596. 

Quaker City Bank t\ Showacre, 869. 
Quebec Bank v. Hellman, 855a. 
Quigley r. Mex. So. Bank, 604a, 781a. 
Quimby r. Buzzell, 112. 
Quin v. Hanford, 569. 

r. Sterne, 688, 710, 715. 
Quinby v, Merritt, 55, 103. 



cxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Quincy, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 1523. 
Quinn v. Hard, 793a, 1190. 

V, Stern, 716. 

V, Tuller, 190. 

R. 

Raborg v. Peyton, 534. 
Radcliffe v. Biles, 849a. 
Rae V. Halbert, 1426. 
Raifey v. Greenwell, 46. 
Raggett V, Axmore, 1333. 
Rahm v. Philadelphia Bank, 656. 
Railroad Co. v. Bank, 1636. 

r. Buckley, 1623. 

V, Chamberlaine, 176, 186. 

V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 300. 

V. Evansville, 1527a. 

V. Fraloff, 1740a. 

V. Howard, 1708. 

V. Johnson, 1248. 

p. Nat. Bank, 10, 8316. 

t?. Otoe Co., 1521, 1523. 

17. Schutte, 441, 673, 7686, 1517a. 

V, Sprague, 1506a. 

r. Stout, 1370. 

V. Tiernan, 397. 
Railroad Nat. Bank v, Lowell, 422a. 
Railway v. Cleaneay, 1489, 1500. 
Railway Co. v. Lynde, 800a, 854, 1491a, 

1506a. 
Rainbolt v. Eddy, 1406. 
Raine v. Rice, 962. 
Raleigh & Gaston v. Lowe, 1727, 1747a, 

1750a. 
Ralli V. Sarell, 508. 
Ralls Co. V. Douglass, 1543. 
Ralston v. Bulitts, 1083, 1106. 
Rait V, Watson, 1483. 
Ramdulloday r. Darieux, 1083. 
Ramish v. Kirschbraum, 17346. 
Ramsdale v. Horton, 1675. 
Ramsdell r. Morgan, 807. 
Ramsey i;. Anderson, 1189. 

p. Peoria, 386. 

p. Thomas, 62. 

V. Young, 81a. 
Ramuz r. Crowe, 1484. 
Rand v. Bamett, 1221, 1343. 

V, Dovey, 31, 664a, 1196. 

r. Hale, 403. 

r. Hubbard, 261, 680. 

17. Reynolds, 1028. 

17. State of N. C, 797. 
Randall v. Randall, 358a. 
Randle r. Davis Coal Co., 713a, 715, 

719. 
Randolph v. Cook, 1209. 

V. Parish, 128. 
Randolph Nat. Bank t?. Homblower, 

1604. 
Raner v, Broder, 598. 



Raney t7. Winter, 298, 411. 
Ranger v, Carey, 746. 

t7. Sargent, 1771. 
Rankin v. Childs, 17856. 

V. Roler, 34. 
Ranklin v. Weguelin, 24. 
Ransom v. Mack, 984, 1014, 1115. 

V, Sherwood, 713c. 
Rapeleye v. Barley, 17856. 
Raper v. Birkbeck, 549. 
Raphael v. Bank of England, 774, 1680. 
Rapp t7. Phoenix Ins. Co., 1770. 
Rasmussen v. State Bank, 1289. 
Rastell V. Draper, 1580. 
Ratcliff v. Everman, 268. 

V, Plan* rs' Bank, 1144. 
Rathborne v. Railroad Co., 1740a. 
Rathbum v. Citizens' Steam. Co., 1626. 
Raught V, Black, 1319. 
Rawlings v. Robson, 305. 
Rawlinson v. Stone, 242, 680. 
Rawson v. Davidson, 32. 

r. Walker, 80, 81. 
Rawstone v. Parr, 816. 
Ray V. Indianapolis Ins. Co., 93. 

V. Faulkner, 513. 

V. McMillan, 764. 

V, Pease, 1213. 

V. Smith, 1128, 1143. 

V. Simmons, 24a. 

V. Tabbs, 224. 
Raymond t\ Baar, 1675. 

V. Holmes, 898, 901, 909, 910. 

V. Mann, 128. 

V, McNeil, 710. 

r. Merchant, 1275. 

17. Middleton, 106. 

17. Palmer, 3266. 

V. Sellick, 25. 
Rayne t?. Dills, 670. 
Raynor v, Laux, 1272. 
Rea v. Dorrance, 1083. 

V. Owens, 1289. 
Read v. Bank of Kentucky, 934. 

17. Cutts, 1786. 

V. Marine Bank, 654, 1228. 

17. Marsh, 552, 553. 

r. McNulty, 54. 

t\ Nor ris, '1342. 

r. Wheeler, 36, 39. 

r. Wilkinson, 508, 1162. 
Reading r. Beardsley, 1198. 
Reakert r. Sanford, 254, 681, 1253. 
Reamer r. Bell, 692. 
Reardon r. Moriarty, 816. 
Reassignment of Pendleton Hardware 

Co., 139, 140. 
Reavis v. Blackshear, 170. 
Redd 17. Supervisors, 1560. 
Redden r. Thrall, 24. 
Reddick v. Jones, 832. 



lUfereneea are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXl 



Redding r. Redding, 163. 
Redenbaugh t7. Kelton, 1300. 
Redington v. Wood, 677, 915, 1654a, 

1661. 
Redlick v. Doll, 143, 842, 843, 1406, 

1498. 
Redlon v. Churchill, 368. 
Redman v. Adams, 51. 

F. Deputy, 1317. 
Rednuiyne v. Burton, 1696. 
Redmond v. Stansbuiy, 1200. 
Reed r. Batchelder, 223, 230, 231. 

r. Boardman, 1251. 

f». Bofthears, 233, 235. 

r. Evans, 1764. 

r. First Nat. Bank. 187, 696, 833. 

r. Roark, 74, 1400. 

V. Stapp, 724a. 

r. Tierney Nat. Bank, 1317. 

V. Trentman, 792. 

r. White, 1299. 

V. Whitney, 1428. 

r. Wilson, 600, 622, 627. 
Reeder r. Brunner, 859'. 

r. Nay, 1260. 
Reedy v. Seizas, 079. 
Rees V. Abbott, 94. 

r. Berrington, 1336. 

r. Conococheague Bank, 145, 663, 
694, 695, 1195. 

r. Warwick, 506. 
Reese r. Bank of Commerce, 1708(i. 
Reere r. Pack, 643. 
Reeves r. First Nat. Bank, 403. 

r. Howe, 996. 

r. Pierson, 1385, 1394. 

r. Scully, 834. 

r. SUte Bank of Ohio, 328, 341, 
344. 
Regan r. Jones, 1183a. 

r. WUIiams, 1316. 
Rcgensbury v. Notestine, 193. 
Regent Canal Iron Works, In re, 

1491a. 
Rq^ina r. Coulsen, 1348. 

V. Harper, 92. 

r. Hawkes, 96. 

r. Keith, 1346. 

V. Sewell, 207. 

r. Watts, 1649. 

r. Wibwn, 1344. 
Regina Flour Mills Co. r. Holmes, 

1187. 
Reichert r. Koerner, 726. 
Reid r. Bank of MobUe, 815, 829a, 832, 
1500, 15016. 

r. Coats, 971. 

V. Fumival, 181, 668. 

V. Kell<^, 1230. 

V. Morrison, 1144, 1145. 

r. Payne, 1022, 1025. 



Reid V. Reid, 1595. 

t?. Rigby & Co., 322. 

r. Smart, 1254. 
Reigart v. White, 1753. 
Reinbath v. Pittsburgh, 1527a, 1532. 
Reinhart v. Dorsey Coal Co., 812. 

t?. Schall, 703, 704, 815. 
Reinke v. Wright, 637, 1114. 
Relyea v, N. H. Rolling Mill Co., 1729, 

1733a. 
Remington r. Dental Mfg. Co., 816, 

174, 185. 
Rendell t?. Harriman, 80, 402, 403. 
Renfro r. Merchants' Bank, 1706a. 
Renick v. Bobbins, 991. 

V. Williams, 725a. 
Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 622, 623, 
1472, 1473, 1481. 

V. United States, 622. 
Renshaw r. Triplett, 987. 
Requa v. Collins, 1032. 
Revel t\ Revel, 256. 
Rew t\ Barber, 1264. 
Rex V. Atkinson, 1347. 

r. Beckett, 1350. 

r. Begg, 688. 

V, Box, 101, 104. 

V. Burke, 1346. 

f?. Elliott, 86. 

V. Ha,!es, 1344. 

V, Hall, 1346. 

». Hart, 1344. 

r. Hunter, 133. 

r. Lambton, 63, 67, 667a. 

t\ Palmer, 1350. 

V. Parke, 1345. 

V. Pateman, 1346. 

r. I»lumer, 1052. 

t?. Post, 76, 1346, 1347, 1350. 

V. Randall, 145. 

V. Reculist, 1346. 

V. Richards, 1346. 

V, Rogers, 1345. 

17. Shukard, 1350. 

v, Simpson, 713a. 

17. Treble, 1346, 1377. 

17. Webb, 1345. 

17. Wilcox, 56, 57. 
Rey 17. Kennear, 481. 

17. Simpson, 703, 710, 712, 713a, 
715. 
Reynes 17. Dumont, 334a, 3346. 
Reynolds t?. Appleman, 969, 976, 984. 

t\ Chettle, 588, 656. 

r. Douglass, 1147, 1788. 

17. French, 1468a. 

17. Kent, 1192. 

V. Middleton, 703a. 

r. Peto, 96, 506. 

r. Robinson, 68a. 

r. Roth, 176, 769. 



CXXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f . 



Rhemstron r. Cone, 124. 

Rhett V. Poe, 999, 999a, 1068, 1081, 

1080, 1788. 
Rhoades t\ Leach, 1387. 
Rhode, Ex parie^ 1144. 

V. Alley, 728. 

r. Proctor, 1001. 
Rhodes v, Beal, 336. 

V, Lindley, o5. 

r. Newhell, 1729o. 

V. Seymour, 608, 713e. 

V, Webb-Jameson Co., 1260, 1282. 
Rioe t?. Dudley, 22, 1623, 1624. 

V. Gove, 94, 401. 

V, Grange, 187. 

V. Hogan, 128. 

V. Ragland, 80. 

V. Rice, 36, 46, 1181a, 1187. 

V, Stearns, 700. 
Rich V. Errol, 422. 

V. Lambert, 1729. 

V. Starbuck, 99, 142, 146. 

V, Topping, 1217. 
Richards t\ Daily, 663, 726. 

r. Darst, 63. 

r. Doe, 1742. 

r. Frankum, 112, 688&. 

V. Globe Bank, 922. 

t?. Jefferson, 359. 

V. Monroe, 775, 789a. 

r. Richards, 254, 256, 686, 1184. 

©. Waller, 1225, 1227. 

V. Warring, 709. 
Richardson t\ Ashby, 833. 

V. Campbell, 1468a. 

V, Carpenter, 60. 

17. Daggett, 255. 

r. Denegre, 340e. 

17. Ellett, 83. 

V. Foster, 710. 

t?. French, 359. 

r. Lincoln, 63, 66, 700, 1201. 

V, Mellish, 196. 

V. Merrill, 250. 

V. New Orleans, etc., Co., 340&, 
340e. 

V. Parker, 1432. 

V. Rice, 830. 

V. Richardson, 179, 180. 

V, Rickman, 1260. 

V. Schirtz, 850. 

V. Scobie, 751. 
Richert v. Koener, 726a. 
Richie v. Bradshaw, 1590. 

17. McCoy, 1082. 
Richmond v. Diefendorf, 777a. 

V. Heapy, 354. 

V. West Point, Town of, 1530. 
Richmond Mfg. Co. r. Davis, 1387. 
Richmond Pot. & Fred. R. Co. v. Snead, 

418. 
Richmond & D. R. Co. v, Payne, 1740a. 



Richmond Locomotive Works r. Mo- 

ragne, 300, 305, 418, 419. 
Richter v, Selin, 1140, 1142, 1148. 
Richwine v. Heim, 257. 
Ricketson r. Wood, 1304. 
Ricketts v. Harvey, 196, 204. 

V. Pendleton, 721, 969. 
Rickford r. Ridge, 331, 1590, 1592. 
Ricord v. Bettenham, 221. 
Riddell v, Prichard, 1187. 
Ridden v. Thrall, 24. 
Riddle v. First Nat. Bank, 1707a. 

V. Russell, 1222, 1228. 
Rideout v. Bristow, 80, 827. 
Rider t?. Clups, 1221. 
Ridgely Bank v. Patton, 61, 1566. 
Ridgeway r. Day, 1096, 1106. 
Ridgway r. Farmers' Bank, 392, 397. 
Ridley v, Taylor, 366. 
Riegel v. Cunningham, 726a, 786. 
Rigby, Ex pa/rte, 1616. 

t\ Norwood, 1764. 
Riggan v. Crain, 316. 
Riggin V. Collier, 11. 
Riggs r. Hatch, 1029. 

r. Lindsay, 605, 1460. 

1?. Powell, 1219. 

17. Trees, 864. 

V, Waldo, 713a. 
Riker v. Cosby, 694. 

V. Sprague Mfg. Co., 43, 48. 
Riley v. Cheesman, 326a, 643. 

t7. Dickens, 86. 

V, Hampshire, etc., Bank, 832a. 

r. Schawhacker, 803. 
Rindskoff r. Barrett, 56, 1706. 
Ringgold V. Tyson, 1217. 
Ringling v. Kohn, 1486, 1600. 
Ringo r. Trustees, 1682. 
Rio Grande Extension Co. t*. Coby, 

424. 
Ripley r. Greenleaf, 1329. 
Ripley Nat. Bank v, Latimer, 1637. 
Risher t\ Risher & Crump, 1250. 
Rising V. Teabout, 1200. 
Risley r. Gray, 203. 

V. PhGBnix Bank, 1618, 1644. 

V. Smith, 16a. 

V. Village, 1637. 
Ritchie v. Deposit & Tr. Co., 1646. 

r. Moore, 694a, 1428, 1429. 
Rittenhouse r. Ammerman, 263. 
Ritter r. Singmaster, 205, 12666, 1274, 

1369. 
Rivers v. Thomas, 713c, 715. 

V. Moss, 170. 

r. Parmley, 960, 962. 
I Riverside Bank v. Land Co., 3406, 

1572, 1647. 
Riverside Iron Works f. Hall, 1260. 
Rixey t?. Pearre, 62a. 



B^trences are to 
pawagmpha mturked f . 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXIU 



Rizer v. Callan, 1339. 
Roach 17. Karr, 849a. 

V. Ostler, 128, 482. 

V. Roanoke Classical Seminary, 
80. 
Roache v. Woodall, 677, 1354, 1469. 
Roads V. Webb, 41, 65, 62, 717, 737, 

738, 883. 
Roalc V. Turner, 767. 
Roanoke G. & M. Co. v. Watkina, 713&, 

714, 715. 
Robartft r. Tucker, 1571, 1618, 1668, 

1663. 
Robb V. Bailey, 683, 1182. 

9. Ross County Bank, 392. 
Bobbins v. Eaton, 231, 234. 

V. Pinkard, 1057. 
Roberts r. Austin, 19, 312, 1567, 1637, 
1638, 1639, 1643. 

V. Bethel, 63, 492, 494. 

t>. BoUes, 1495, 1557. 

V. Bradshaw, 1051, 1160. 

V. Bruce, 1343. 

r. Cobb, 183. 

V. Coffin, 1342. 

V. Fisher, 737. 

9. Hall, 781. 

i>. Hardy, 216. 

V. Hawkins, 1786. 

V. Jacks, 51. 

V. Lane, 726a, 803, 816. 

V. McGrath, 854. 

V. Manson, 1119. 

p. Masters, 707, 7136, 716. 

r. Parrish, 1192. 

p. Peake, 41. 

V. Pepple, 366. 

9. Roberts, 196. 

p. Smith, 55. 

p. Snow, 48, 62, 1191, 1192. 

p. Thompson, 1277a. 

p. Tucker, 326a, 1571. 

p. Wood, 834. 
Roberts, Thorp & Co. p. Laughlin, 

1769. 
Robertson p. Allen, 675. 

p. Banks, 262, 271. 

p. Burdekin, 905. 

P. City of Rockford, 1524. 

p. Coleman, 139, 769a, 1663. 

p. Cooper, 197. 

p. Kensington, 697, 698. 

p. Nat. Steamship Co., 1740. 

p. Parks, 1428. 

p. Robertson, 196. 

p. Smith, 1294, 1296. 

p. Stewart, 101. 

p. Williams, 189, 790. 
Robins r. Bacon, 16a (3), 17, 21, 22, 
1721. 

P. Brooks, 185. 



Robins t\ Gibson, 940, 943, 1076, 1078. 

p. Richardson, 793a. 
Robinson's Admrs. p. Allison, 1252. 
Robinson, Ex parte, 312, 314. 

p. Abel, 713c. 

p. Ames, 454, 471, 1076, 1213. 

P. Bank of Darien, 1478, 1693. 

p. Barnett, 1102, 1107, 1353, 

p. Bartlett, 713a. 

p. Beall, 1682. 

p. Berryman, 1387. 

p. Bland, 86, 128, 204, 213, 740, 
866, 879. 

p. Blen, 598. 

P. Campbell, 748, 834. 

p. Cheney, 643. 

p. Gardiner, 1681, 1691. 

p. Hamilton, 1030. 

p. Hawks, 1587, 1638. 

p. Kanawha Valley Bank, 301. 

p. Lain, 1781. 

p. Lair, 184. 

P. Law, 123. 

p. Leavette, 1491a. 

p. Little, 721. 

p. Lyle, 1331. 

p. Memphis R. Co., 1733. 

p. Powers, 815, 11926. 

p. Queen, 867. 

p. Read, 740, 1271. 

p. Reynolds, 174, 803. 

p. St. Louis, 1522. 

P. Taylor, 373. 

p. Waddell, 832. 

p. Wilkinson, 1197. 

p. Yarrow, 290, 536, 638, 639, 
1225, 1364. 
Roblee p. Rankin, 800a. 
Robson P. Bennett, 992, 1590. 

p. Curlewis, 983. 

p. Early, 1198. 
Rochester Printing Co. p. Loomis, 831c. 
Rock Bank p. Hewitt, 623. 
Rock County Nat. Bank p. HoUister, 

698, 698<i, 721, 1192. 
Rockhill p. Moore, 722. 
Rock Springs Nat. Bank p. Lumam, 

392. 
Rockville Nat. Bank p. Citizens' Gas 
Light Co., 389, 831, 832. 

p. Holt, 1322. 
Rockwell p. Dye, 232. 

p. Hunt, 122. 

p. Wilder, 354, 724a. 
Rocky Mt. Nat. Bank p. McCaskell, 

356, 369a. 
Rodabaugh p. Pitkin, 1787. 
Roden v. Ryde, 1218. 
Roderocker p. Littauer, 197, 925. 
Rodes p. Patillo, 170. 
Rodick P. Gandelle, 1645. 



CXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



Rodney v. Wilson, 719. 
Rodocanachi v. Buttrick, 715. 
Roe V. Hallett, 709. 

V. Kiser, 816. 
Roehner t*. Knickerbocker Life Ins. 

Co., 624. 
Rogers v. Batchelor, 366, 369. 

t». Bidell, 816, 157. 

V. Blythe, 196. 

V. Burlington, 1522, 1523, 1532, 
1547. 

V. Colt, 688a. 

V. Gibson, 101. 

V. Hackett, 1110, 1162. 

17. Hadley, 193, 770. 

V. Huntingdon Bank, 1708c. 

V, Jewel Belting Co., 386. 

V, Keokuk, 1560, 1562. 

V. Langford, 1119, 1679a. 

r. McGuire, 812. 

V. Miller, 1484. 

V, Morton, 816. 

V. Posters, 1382. 

V. Shaw, 1415. 

V, Squire, 265. 

V, Stephens, 942, 971, 986, 1162. 

r. Topp, 1387. 

V, Walker, 213. 

17. Walsh, 734. 

V, Ward, 248. 

V. Ware, 136, 138, 139, 140, 163. 

V. Warner, 1770. 

V. Waters, 186. 
Rogerson v. Hare, 991. 
Roger Williams Nat. Bank v. Manu- 
facturing Co., 271, 306. 
Roget t7. Merritt, 1269. 
Rohan v, Hanson, 1252. 
Rohde, Ex parte, 1144. 
Rohrer v. Morningstar, 1217. 
Roland r. Logan, 254. 
Rolfe V, Wyatt, 1335. 
Rolin V. Stewart, 1638, 1642. 
Rolleston v. Hibbert, 744. 
Rollins V, Bartlett, 1393. 

V. Bd. of Commissioners, 803, 
1537. 

V. Chaffee Co., 10a. 

V. GUson, 986. 

t\ Lashus, 1189. 
Rolls t?. Pearce, 26. 
Rolt V, Watson, 1475. 
Rome V. Cabat, 1522. 
Romero v, Newman, 833, 1227, 1228. 
Romine t?. Romine, 1339. 
Ronald r. Bank, 62a. 
Roof V. Stafford, 229. 
Roosa 17. Crist, 663a, 904. 
Roosevelt v. Draper, 1528. 

V, Woodhull, 1066. 



Root V, Franklin, 640. 

r. Merriam, 195a. 

r. Taylor, 1432. 

!?. Wallace, 734. 
Roquette v. Overman, 898, 908. 
Rorninger v, Keyes, 90. 
Rosa t*. Butterfield, 674. 

f. Brotherton, 831c. 
Roscoe 17. Hardy, 1224. 
Rose 17. Bridgeport, 1512. 

t\ City of Bridgeport, 1489. 

17. Hurley, 859. 

17. Laffan, 1187. 

r. Learned, 81. 

17. McCracken, 639, 640, 643. 

r. Mumford, 1458a. 

t\ San Antonio K Co., 188. 

t\ Sims, 187, 744. 

t\ Williams, 1316, 1338. 
Rosenbaum Bros. v. Levitt, 196, 196a. 
Rosenbaum et al, 17. Bank, 1251. 
Rosher 17. Kieman, 990.' 
Ross, Ex parte, 1424. 

17. Bedell, 165, 198, 814, 909, 
1085. 

V. Drinkard, 815. 

17. Donald, 850. 

1?. Espy, 103, 703, 716. 

17. Hurd, 1147. 

17. Jones, 1339. 

17. Planters' Bank, 979a. 

V. Terry, 731. 

V. Webster, 812. 
Rossi 17. Nat. Bank, 192, 669a, 698d. 

17. Schwacker, 713. 
Rossiter 17. Loeber, 166, 167. 

17. Rossiter, 281, 306, 308. 
Rosson 17. Carroll, 611, 992, 996, 1039, 

1051. 
Roswell Mining Co. 17. Hudson, 88. 
Rotan 17. Meadgen, 758a, 775, 803. 
Roth 17. Colbin, 775. 
Rothschild v. Corney, 1506, 1634. 

17. Currie, 908, 911, 936, 970. 

t\ Leavitt, 1492. 

17. Maslacker, 1289. 
Rotschild 17. Grix, 713a. 
Rounds V, Smith, 1626. 
Round tree v. Baker, 173. 
Rouquette t;. Overman, 970a. 
Routh 17. Robertson, 9S4. 
Rouvant 17. San Antonio Bank, 1361. 
Rouyer 17. Miller, 62a. 
Row 17. Dawson, 16a, 23. 
Rowan 17. Odenheimer, 979. 
Rowe r. Putnam, 139. 

V. Tipper, 988, 1044, 1045. 

17. Young, 459, 519, 641, 1381. 
Rowland 17. Bigelow, 1746. 

17. Fowler, 758a, 775, 795a. 

17. Roke, 1763. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked }. 



TABL£ OF GASES. 



CXXV 



Rowland r. Sprinjett, 083. 
Bowley r. Ball, 1478, 1484. 
Rowlinson v. Stone, 265. 
Bowse V. Johnson, 8346. 
Rowt r. Kyle, 1219. 
Rozborough v. Messick, 827. 
Royal r. Lindsay, 13176. 

r. Virginia, 448. 
Royal Ins. Co. v, Davis, 1770. 
Royce v. Nye, 1197, 1198. 
Roylston Xat. Bank v. Richardaon, 

1369. 
Royse i?. Bank, 1398. 
Rnbelman r. McNichols, 119*1. 
Rubey v. Watson, 1311. 
Rublee v. Davis, 202. 
Rncker r. Dearing, 1245. 

V. Hiller, 971, 1076, 1081. 

V. Wadlington, 263. 
Rudd 9. Mathews, 1351. 
Ruddell V, Landers, 728. 
Rudderow v. Huntington, 193. 
Rude r. Harvey, 367. 
Rttdelle r. Dillman, 849a, 852. 

r. Pharlor, 849a, 850, 852. 
Ruff F. Webb, 35. 
Ruffin r. Armstrong, 762a. 
Rugely r. Davidson, 611. 
Rubles V. Patten, 643, 1296. 
Ruiz V. Renald, 550. 
Rumball r. Ball, 1685. 

r. Metropolitan Bank, 1504, 1708^. 
Rnmsey r. Briggs, 358a, 360. 

r. Laidley, 1277. 

r. Railway Co., 833. 
Rundel v. Keeler, 224. 
Bundle r. Moore, 330. 
Runnlon r. Crane, 1418. 
Runyon v. Clark, 1222. 

r. Mountford, 1025. 
Ruohs V. Bank, 673, 1533. 
Buah V. First Nat. Bank, 1278. 

r. Haggard, 102. 

V. Rush, 335. 
Rnahforth, Ex parte, 1342. 
Buskin v. Tharpe, 1468a. 
Buss 17. Sadler, 703, 704, 793. 
Bussell r. Brown, 1316, 13l8. 

r. Clark, 1785a. 

f?. Drummond, 294. 

r. Folsom, 387. 

r. Hadduck, 775. 

r. Hankey, 1624. 

r. Klink, 1777. 

V. Langstaffe, 142, 144, 145, 372, 
694, 843, 1037, 1172. 

r. Lee, 224. 

17. McNab, 1376. 

V. Moseley, 1766. 

r. Phillips, 450, 479, 509, 516. 

9. Russell, 54. 



Bussell V, Swan, 664a, 683, 684. 

r. Wiggins, 551, 561, 897, 1799. 

r. Whipple, 38. 

f?. Wright, 186. 
Bussell & Erwin Mfg. Co. v. Carpenter, 

1284. 
Bust V, Gott, 195. 
Buten V, Gruner, 850. 
Butherford v, Mitchell, 1187. 
Butland Bank v. Buck, 793a. 
Butland, etc., B. Co. v. Cole, 1187. 
Byan v. Bank of Montreal, 1369. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 1398. 

V. Holliday, 833, 834. 

t7. McKerral, 185. 

V. Paine, 82. 
Byhiner v. Feickert, 103, 288a, 684. 
Byland v. Brown, 774, 789. 

S. 

Sabin v. Harris, 1787. 
Sabine t?. Bank of Worcester, 17086. 
Sachlenben v. Heintze, 193. 
Sackett r. Kellar, 797, 861. 

V. Montgomery, 741. 

V, Palmer, 46. 

i;. Spencer, 38. 
Sackley v, Furse, 221. 
Sackrider v. Brown, 681, 582, 586. 
Saco Nat. Bank r. Sanborn, 1024, 1032, 

1050. 
Safe Dep. Tr. Co. r. Bank, 265. 
Saffold V. Banks, 268. 
Safford v, Wyckoff, 382, 389, 411, 991. 
Sage V. Burton, 294, 1230, 1623. 

V, Wilcox, 1764. 
Sager t'. Tupper, 74. 
Sagory v, Metropolit n Nat. Bank, 151. 
Sahlien v. Bank, 342. 
St. Aman v. Bank of Commerce, 1636, 

1636a. 
St. Joe & Mineral Mining Co. t*. Bank, 

386. 
St. John 17. Homans, 1587, 1595, 1620. 

V, McConnell, 1217. 

V. Bedmond, 297. 

t\ Boberts, 997, 1238. 
St. Joseph F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Hauck, 

1317. 
St. Joseph Township v. Bogers, 1520, 

1523, 1535a, 1537, 1550, 1557, 

1561. 
St. Louis f?. Alexander, 1559. 

t\ Bartle, 1103, 1311. 
St. Louis, etc., Ins. Co. r. Horner, 81. 
St. Louis, etc., By. Co. v. Edwards, 

1732. 
St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Flanagan, 793a. 
St. Louis & Santa Fe B. Co. v. Adams, 

1740a. 



CXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked 



St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. 

Hurst, 1739. 
St. Louis P. Ins. Co. v. Gknxlfellow, 

1708d. 
St. Marie v. Policy s, 1317. 
St. Nicholas Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 

341. 
Salamons v. Hoyt, 90. 
Salander v. Lockwood, 838, 850. 
Salinas v. Wright, 41. 
Salisbury v. Bartleson, 639^. 

V, First Nat. Bank, 713a. 

V, Reinick, 1147, 1149. 

17. Stewart, 62, 62a. 
Salmon Falls Bank t;. Seyer, 384, 751, 

753. 
Salomon v. Hopkins, 94, 194, 252, 304, 

363. 
Saloy V. Bank, 1503. 
Salter t?. Burt, 627, 1578. 
Saltmarsh v. Planters, etc.. Bank, 751, 
753, 763. 

v. Tuthill, 983, 1217. 
Saltsman r. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 

1729a. 
Salt Springs Bank p. Syracuse Sav. 

Ins. Co., 528. 
^t Springs Nat. Bank v. Burton, 600, 

602. 
Sammons v. Halloway, 122. 
Sample v. Cochran, 1311. 
Samples v. Samples, 1230. 
Sampson v. People, 1538. 
Samstag v. Conley, 62. 
San Antonio v. Lane, 1500, 1513, 1514, 
1523, 1527. 

r. Meharty, 1495a, 1537. 
Sanborn v. Neal, 406. 
Sand V. Edmonds, 448. 
Sanders v, Anderson, 75. 

V, Bacon, 152. 

V. Bagwell, 1385. 

17. Blaine, 266. 

17. Bragwell, 1401. 

17. Chartrand, 297, 316, 317. 

17. Gillespie, 723. 

V. Smith, 183. 

17. Vanzeller, 1745a, 1748. 
Sanderson v. Bowes, 519, 642, 645. 

t7. Colman, 535. 

17. Judge, 635, 642, 652, 657, 1021, 
1049, 

V. Oakey, 1119. 

i7. Reinstadler, 1016. 

t?. Sanderson, 1039, 1140. 
San Diego v. San Diego, etc., R. Co., 

282. 
Sands v. Clarke, 1119. 

17. Smith, 894. 

17. Wood, 688c. 
Sanford r. Allen, 1769a. 



Sanford i?, Dillaway, 1172. 

17. Mickles, 370, 370a, 683. 

17. Norton, 775. 

17. Sanford, 255. 
Sanger 17. Stimpson, 56, 979. 
San Jose Sav. Bank r. Stone, 80. 
Sankland 17. Corporation of Washing- 
ton, 277. 
Sansome 17. Bell, 1771. 
Saratoga County Bank 17. Pruyn, 248. 
Sardeson 17. Menage, 1623. 
Sargent r. Appleton, 1306. 

17. Essex Marine Co., 1708c. 

V. Franklin, 1708rf. 
Sarsfield v, Witherly, 6.. 
Sasportas 17. Jennings, 856. 
Sasscer 17. Farmers' Bank, 969. 

17. Whitely, 1031. 
Satterlee v. JVIathewson, 1565. 
Satterwhite 17. Melczer, 1636a. 
Saton 17. Hunt, 1241. 
Saul V. Creditors, 875. 

17. Jones, 519. 
Saunders v. McClintock, 193. 

17. Wakefield, 1764. 

17. White, 1690, 1691. 
Saunderson i7. Jackson, 74. 

17. Piper, 86. 
Savage 17. Aldren, 697. 

17. Fox, 180. 

V. King, 242, 681. 

17. Merle, 1221. 

17. Walshe, 385. 
Savannah & Memphis R. Co; v, Lan- 
caster, 382, 15016. 
Savings Assn. v. Barber, 1200. 
Savings Bank t\ Atkinson R. Co., 
1733a. 

17. Barrett, 183. 

17. Benton, 393. 

17. Central Market Co., 403, 1221, 
1266c, 1326. 

17. Frend, 1221, 1222. 

17. Hydis, 392. 

17. Libby, 834. 

17. McCarthy, 24o. 

17. Nat. Bank, 342, 775. 

17. Schott, 800, 802, 834, 834a, 
8346. 

17. Scott, 197, 198. 

17. ShaflFer, 1411. 

17. Strother, 54. 

17. Terry, 1339. 

17. United States, 349a. 

17. Webster, 358a. 
Savings Bank of Kansas t\ Nat. Bank 

of Commerce, 108, 197. 
Savings Co. v. New London, 391. 
Savings Deposit Tr. Co. r. Wright, lOG. 
Savings & Loan Soc. 17. Burnett, 748, 

1221, 1260. 



References are to 
paragraphe marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXVll 



Sawtelle v. Muncy, 247. 
Sawyer r. Bradford, 1311. 

c. Brownell, 707. 

r. Cleveland Iron Co., 1733a. 

r. Hoovey, 725a. 

r. McCauley, 1198. 

f . Moran, 830. 

c. Parker, 124, 125. 

r. Prickett, 834, 834a. 

t?. Wisewell, 176, 205, 805. 
Sawyers r. Campbell, 1312, 1332, 1377, 

1397. 
Saxton V, Stevenson, 54a. 
Sayers r. First Nat. Bank, 101. 
Sayles r. Cox, 334. 

r. Sims, 1338a. 
Sayre v. Frick, 684, 999a. 

r. Mahoney, 203. 

r. Nichols, 411. 

r. Reynolds, 1418. 

V. Weil, 24. 

r. Wheeler, 69. 
Scaife r. Byrd, 65. 

r. Tobin, 1738. 
Scammon r. Adams, 721. 

r. Kimball, 334. 
Scanland r. Porter, 713a. 
Scarborough r. Harris, 1083. 
Scarpellini v. Atcheson, 254, 257. 
Schafer r. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank, 

713. 
Schaffer v. Fowler, 827. 
Schaffner v. £hrman, 1642. 

r. Kober, 203. 
Sohaller r. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 

1740a. 
Scharfer r. Moore, 1290. 
Schell City Bank r. Reed, 1343. 
Sehenley r. Commonwealth, 1660. 
Schepp r. Carpenter, 184, 791, 792, 

793, 793a, 831c. 
Schicrl r. Baumcl, 1200, 1276. 
Sehimmelpennich r. Bayard, 451, 524, 

551, 560, 561, 1799. 
Schindel r. Oaten, 12156. 
•x'hlaudecker's Appeal, 1708. 
Sehleman r. Schendorf, 1482. 
Schlessman t*. Kallenberg, 1343. 
^chlessiDger v. Arline, 62. 
5=chley r. Merritt, 713a. 
SchluAsel r. Warren, 1317. 
Schmacker r. Sibert, 1215. 
Schmidt r. Garfield Nat. Bank, 293, 
294. 

r. Lomehouse, 1458. 

f. Schmaelter, 74. 

V, Spencer, 248, 249. 
Schmidt Matting Co. r. Miller, 713o. 
Schmied r. Frank, 1093, 1326. 
Schmittler r. Simon, 418. 
Schmitz c. Gold Mining Co., 38. 



Schmitzler v. Fourth Nat. Bank of 

Wichita, 1316. 
Schmueckle v. Waters, 156, 195a, 197, 

7956, 815. 
Schnebly v, Ragan, 1281. 
Schneider v. Norris, 74. 

V. Schiffman, 712, 713a, 715. 

V. Trandt et al., 1317. 
Schneitman r. Noble, 392. 
Schnelz v. Rix, 1401. 
Schnewind v. Hacket, 1385. 
Schoer v. Houghlin, 286. 
Schofield r. Bayard, 526, 1068a. 

V. Day, 917, 918. 

r. Stames, 62. 
Schoharie Nat. Bank r. Bevard, 107, 

642. 
Scholefiedd v. Eichelberger, 1060. 
Scholey v, Ramsbottom, 1235, 1631. 

V. Walsby, 1229. 
Scholfield t*. Earl of Londesborough, 

1406, 1407, 1408. 
SchoUenberger v. Nehf, 715. 

V. Seldenridge, 1301. 
School Directors v. Fogleman, 377, 429. 
School District t*. Reese, 1197. 

r. ycheidley, 63a, 165. 

V. Sippy, 290. 

V, Thompson, 319. 
School Town of Monticello r. Kendall, 

403, 443a. 
Schooler v. Tilden, 145. 
Schooner Freeman r. Buckingham, 

1729, 1733. 
Schorman t*. Railroad Co., 1734a. 
Schram v, Werner, 816, 710, 1338, 

1341, 1343. 
Schroeder r. Central Bank, 16366. 

f. Kinney, 1312. 

r. Leitz, 1219. 

r. Nielson, 813, 8156. 

r. Turner, 713a. 
Schryver r. Hawkes, 143. 
Schuchardt v. Hall, 1074, 17346. 
Schulte V. Coulthurst, 812. 
Schultz r. Ashley, 490. 

V. Astley, 142, 144. 
Schultze r. Noble, 175. 
Schumacher v. Trent, 341. 
Schusten v. Marden, 725a. 
Schutt V. Evans, 205. 
Schuttler t\ King, 1478. 
Schuylkill County r. Copely, 847. 
Schwalm r. Mclntyre, 1386. 
Schwartzkopf v. Hill, 175. • 
Schwarz v. Oppold, 1385. 
Schwarzchild r. Savannah, etc., Ry. 

Co., 1740a. 
Schweider v. Lang, 1289a. 
Schwind v. Hall, 812, 1200, 1228. 
Scionneaux v. Wagnerpack, 1191. 
Scipio V. Wright, 1532, 1552, 1565a. 



CXXVIU 



TABLE OF GASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



Scofleld t*. Ford» 1409. 

Scollans v. Rollins, 1468a, 15015. 

ScoUeins v. Flyn, 195. 

Scotland County v. Hill, 804, 1613. 

Scotland County Bank r. O'Connell, 

1405. 
Scott V. Armstrong, 1425. 

V, Baker, 403. 

17. Sevan, 917, 1454. 

V, Calkin, 694a. 

V. Colmisnil, 350a. 

V. Commonwealth, 1672. 

V, Crews, 286. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 724a. 

V. Gilkey, 1245, 1625. 

V. Gillmore, 204. 

V, Greer, 1107. 

V, Hall, 1318. 

V. Harris, 1317, 1319. 

V. Hart, 859. 

V. Lefford, 1290. 

V. Lifford, 992, 995a. 

V, Lloyd, 1217. 

t\ McLellan, 295. 

V. Meeker, 1147, 1587. 

t\ Nat. Bank, 286a. 

V. Ocean Bank, 333. 

V. Otis, 248. 

17. Perlee, 90, 923. 

V, Scott, 814. 

V, Scruggs, 1312, 1317, 1327, 1334, 
1337. 

17. Tane, 1336, 1338. 

17. Town of Menasha, 194. 

17. Searles, 265. 

17. State Bank, 855. 

17. Trents, 1420. 

V. Waken, 1395. 
Scotten r. Randolph, 769a. 
Scoville 17. Canfield, 882. 

17. Landon, 812. 
Scribner t7. Hanke, 183, 1191. 

17. Rutherford, 1790. 
Scrivens 17. Savings Bank, 24a. 
Scroggin 17. MeCleland, 1634. 
Scruggs 17. Cass, 737, 1677. 
Scudder t\ Thomas, 205. 

17. Union Nat. Bank, 604, 867. 
Scull r. Edwards, 130, 663. 

17. Mason, 1096. 
Seaboard Nat. Bank v, Burleigh, 564, 

661, 1799. 
Seabury 17. Hungerford, 708, 713e, 

1099. • 
Seacord 17. Miller, 1134. 
Searcy i?. Vance, 56. 
Searight v. Callright, 874. 
Searle r. Norton, 1587. 

17. Supp, 1384. 
Sears 17. Brink, 1764. 

17. Lantz, 688c. 



Sears t*. Moore, 726. 

17. Wingate, 1728, 1729, 1729a, 
1733 

r. Wright, 43, 81. 
Seaton 17. Scoville, 62, 995a. 
Seaver 17. Cobum, 403. 

17. Lincoln, 572, 604, 609. 

17. Phelps, 210, 685. 

17. Weston, 1349, 1352a. 
Seay 17. Fennell, 724a. 

V. Palmer, 890. 
Sebag 17. Abithol, 515. 
Sebree 17. Dorr, 653. 
Sebree Deposit Bank v. Moreland, 990. 

1147a, 1148. 
Second Nat. Bank r. Anglin, 62. 

17. Brady, 166. 

17. Gaylord, 1787. 

17. Howe, 191, 802. 

t\ McGuire, 1133. 

17. Miller, 248. 

17. Walbridge, 1733. 

17. Western, 365, 367, 369a, 371, 
375, 775, 7956. 

17. Western Nat. Bank, 1608. 
Secor 17. Clark, 757. 
Security Bank r. Bell, 186, 640. 

17. Kingsland, 290, 393, 832a. 

17. Luttgen, 1730, 1734. 
Security Nat. Bank t*. Nat. Bank, 1603, 

1661. 
Security Co. of Hartford 17. Eyer et al., 

889. 
Sedgwick v. Lewis, 357. 

17. Sedgwick, 1418. 
Seeborn v. Am. Nat. Bank, 1468a. 
Seebright 17. Fletcher, 849a. 
Seeley v. Engell, 201. 

17. Reed, Q70. 

17. Wickstrom, 1191, 1192, 1201. 
Segrist r. Crabtree, 1260. 
Seibeneck 17. Anchor Bank, 1312, 1319. 
Seeligson v. Lewis, 195a, 206, 206. 
Selby r. Case, 193. 

17. Eden, 642. 

17. McCuUough, 1260. 
Seldenridge v. Connable, 83. 
Seldner t7. Mt. Jackson Bank, 1104, 

1109a. 
Self ridge v. Northampton Bank, 1669. 
Sells i\ Tootle, 741. 
Selser 17. Brock, 1314. 
Selz 17. Collins, 329, 330. 
Semple v, Detwiler, 1278a. 

17. Turner, 713, 713a. 
Seneca County Bank 17. Neass, 644, 

657, 962, 969, 1025. 
Sentance v. Poole, 210. 
Senter t7. Continental Bank, 1637. 
Sereroe 17. First Nat. Bank, 156. 
Serle v. Norton, 85. 

17. Waterworth, 685. 



Refereneea are to 
poroffraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CZXIX 



Sergeson r. Sealey, 213. 

Seirell v, Derbyshire R. Co., 1616. 

Sessions v. Moseley, 24, 26, 1181a. 

Search v. Miller, 164. 

Seventh Nat. Bank r. Cook, 1636, 1663. 

Seventh Ward Bank r. Hanrich, 1041. 

Sewell F. Boston Water Power Co., 

1708. 
Sewanee Mining Co. r. McCall, 260, 

291, 292. 
Seward v. Derrickson, 1096. 
Sewell V. Evans, 1218. 
Sevbel v. Nat. Currency Bank, 441, 

775, 776, 1500. 
Seybert p. City of Pittsburg, 1623, 

1632. 
Seybold v. Nat Bank, 24, 1181a. 
Seyfert r. Edison, 241, 785. 
Seymour v. Cemetery Assn., 377, 
1517a. 

V. Continental Life Ins. Co., 1458a. 

V. Farrell, 710, 713, 713a. 

r. ^lalcolm, etc.. Lumber Co., 
769a. 

p. Mickey, 713c. 

r. Newton, 17346. 

r. Norton, 17346, 1734c. 
Seymour & Co. r. Farquhar, 151. 
Seymour Opera House Co. v. Thurston, 

819. 
Shackleford r. Hooker, 101, 508. 
Shade r. Creviston, 1288. 
Shaeffer r. Clendennin, 1343. 
Shafer p. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank, 

713d. 
Shaffer r. Hohenschild, 710. 
Shaffers r. Maddox, 1588. 
Shakespear v. Smith, 427. 
Shain r. Goodwin, 815. 

r. Sullivan, 666, 668. 
Shamburgh v. Cammagere, 635, 1217. 
Shand v. Du Boisson, 16a. 
Shank r. Butsch, 74. 
ShankUnd r. Corp. of Washington, 

277. 
Shanklin r. Cooper, 901, 936. 
Shannon v. Langhorne, 187. 
Sharp r. AUgood, 855. 

7. Bailey, 90, 1085. 

F. Emmett, 314. 

V. Garnet, 1341. 

r. Taylor, 200. 
Sharpe v. Bagwell, 1393. 

r. Bellis, 305. 
Sharpless r. Mayo, 1523. 
Shattuck r. Eldridge, 795a. 
Shaver r. Ehle, 1 12, 1220. 

r. Ocean Mining Co., 400. 

V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 
16a, 508. 
Shaw p. Camp, 46. 

p. Clark, 195a, 803. 

Vol. I — ix 



Shaw P. Craft, 990. 

V. Dennis, 1556, 1567. 

p. Emery, 252. 

p. Gardner, 1740. 

p. Knox, 703. 

p. M. E. Soc., 79, 154. 

p. McNeill, 1095, 1147. 

p. Neal, 1060, 1070. 

p. Outwater, 673. 

P. Railroad Co., 775, 1730, 1747a, 
1750a. 

p. Reed, 644, 653, 1144. 

p. Rigby, 1458a. 

p. Smith, 100. 

p. Spencer, 271, 795a, 1708. 

p. Stein, 722. 

p. Stone, 424. 
Shaw & Schooner p. Jacobs, 693. 
Shawmut Nat. Bank p. Manson, 340c, 

1632. 
Shaw, Trustee P. Saranac Horse Nail 

Co. 294 
Shaylor p. Mix, 1012. 
Sheboygan Co. p. Parker, 1523. 
Shed p. Brett, 572, 592, 079, 991, 1050, 

1051, 1118, 1209, 1212. 
Sheedy p. Streeter, 720a. 
Sheehy p. Mandeville, 1260, 1261, 1296, 

1297, 1299, 1300. 
Sheets p. Peabody, 268. 
Sheets, Admr. v. Russell, 1289. 
Sheffield p. Larue, 307, 308. 
Shehan p. Davis, 1343. 
^elburne Falls Nat. Bank p. Towns- 
ley, 1003, 1005, 1006, 1014, 1021, 

1028, 1044, 1045. 
Shelby p. Judd, 688c. 
Sheldon p. Benham, 5b4, 992. 

p. Butler, 1763. 

p. Button, 26. 

P. Chapman, 1103. 

p. Heaton, 1211, 1215. 

p. Horton, 1104. 

p. Kendall, 1431. 

P. Parker, 7536. 
Shellenbecs et al. v. Studebacker, 358a. 
Shelton p. Braithwaite, 974, 983, 1026. 

p. Bruce, 41. 

p. Carpenter, 680. 

p. Darling, 413. 

p. Gill, 62. 
Shenandoah Nat. Bank p. Marsh, 62. 
Shenton p. James, 108. 
Shepang p. Trust Cases, 1708. 
Shepard p. Hawley, 999a. 

P. Whetstone, 1414, 1415, 1419. 
Shepard & Morse Lumber Co. p. El- 
dridge, 1362. 
Shepherd p. Evans, 1184. 

p. Graves, 83. 

P. Harrison, 1734, 17346. 

p. Temple, 202. 



cxxx 



TABLE OF OASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Shepley v. Waterhouse, 1215&. 
Sherer v, Easton Bank, 959, 1166. 
Sheridan v. Mayor, 11926. 
Sherman v. (Domstock, 1586. 

i\ Gilbert, 749. 

V. Mclntyre, 71. 

V. Port Huron Engine & Thresher 
Co., 341, 344, 345. 
Sherman Co. v. Simons, 1537. 
Sherrard v. Lafayette County, 1549. 
Sherrill v. Hopkins, 875. 
Sherrington t\ Yates, 257, 1184. 
Sherrod v. Dixon, 241. 

17. Rhodes, 1163. 
Sherwood v. Archer, 207. 

17. Barton, 371a, 

17. Moore, 1458a. 

17. Roys, 1181a. 

17. Snow, 357, 366. 

r. Stone, 314. 
Shewell 17. Knox, 1785. 
Shields v. Middleton, 568. 
Shipley v. Carroll, 837. 

17. Reasoner, 789. 
Shipman 17. Bank of the State of New 
York, 139, 802, 1367, 1618. 

17. Cook, 971. 
Shipp V. Stacker, 725a. 
Shipsey v. Bowery Nat. Bank, 1599. 
ShireflF v, Wilkes, 489. 
Shirey 17. Adair, 740a, 1189. 
Shirk V, Mitchell, 810. 

17. North, 242. 
Shirley t\ Fellows, 1048, 1077. 

17. Howard, 177. 

V, Todd, 1437. 
Shirts 17. Overjohn, 850, 851. 
Shisler 17. Van Dyke, 1352a. 
Shiver r. Johnson, 112. 
Shoe & Leather Nat. Bank t7. Doe, 407. 

17. Wood, 873, 879. 
Shoemaker t\ Benedict, 1215&. 

17. Goshen Township, 1545. 

r. Mechanics' Bank, 1008. 
Shoemakers' Bank 17. Street, 56. 
Shook r. Shute, 1789. 
Short r. City of New Orleans, 422, 
429, 431. 

r. Trabue, 880, 899. 
Shortbridge's Case, 1615. 
Shortrede 17. Cheek, 1766. 
Shotwell V. McKown, 400. 
Shoulters v. Allen, 210. 
Shrewes 17. Allen, 775. 
Shrieve v. Duckman, *985, 1590. 
Shriner 17. Keller, 1265. 
Shroeder 17. Webster, 1412. 
Shuey 17. Holmes, 203. 
Shufeldt i\ Gillilan, 742. 
Shuler t\ Gillette, 1380. 
Shultz 17. Catlin, 857. 



Shultz 17. Payne, 83. 
Shumway 17. Keid, 1267. 
Shute 17. Hinman, 1612a. 

17. Jones, 812. 

V. Pac. Nat, Bank, 1703. 

17. Robins, 466, 471, 472, 474. 
Shuttleworth 17. Noyes, 242. 

r. Stevens, 133. 
Shutte r. Fingar, 1306, 1307, 1311. 
Sibley 17. Am. Exch. Nat Bank, 664a, 
1754. 

17. Muskegon Nat. Bank, 713a. 
Sibree t?. Tripp, 1289, 1703, 1707. 
Sicard v. Whale, 886. 
Sice 17. Cunningham, 607, 609, 611, 612, 

1163. 
Siebel r. Vaughan, 1406. 
Siebeneck v. Anchor Sav. Bank, 1317. 
Sieger 17. Second Nat. Bank, 1147. 
Siegel 17. Chicago Trust Co., 60a, 790. 
Siegfried r. Ludwig, 373. 
Siffkin 17. Walker, 360. 
Sigerson 17. Mathews, 1103, 1147,1149, 

1162. 
Sigourney v. Lloyd, 698. 

17. Wetherell, 1328, 1788. 
Sill V. Leslie, 716, 717. 
Silliman 17. Fredericksburg, etc., R. 

Co., 1498, 1550. 
Simanton 17. Vliet, 403, 418. 
Simeon Leland in Bankruptcy, 1487. 
Simmons 17. Savings Society, 26. 

V. Taylor, 1585a. 
Simms t\ Bank of Alma, 753a. 
Simo r. Hammond, 8346. 
Simon r. Huot, 800a. 
Simonds r. Merritt, 803. 
Simmons 17. Atkinson & Lampton Co., 
1405. 

17. Thompson, 81a. 
Simmons Hardware Co. v. Bank, 1637. 
Simms 17. Clark, 1675. 
Simons 17. Fisher, 392, 815. 

17. Morris, 782, 786. 

17. Steel, 1764. 
Simpson 17. Davis. 1418. 

17. Field, 1298. 

17. FuUenwider, 751. 

17. Garland, 307, 400. 

17. GriflSn, 1459. 

17. Hall, 724a, 725, 741. 

r. Ingham, 1250, 1253. 

17. Meneden, 56. 

17. Pacific, etc., Ins. Co., 1590, 
1593. 

17. Stackhouse, 1417. 

17. Tumey, 1044, 1045. 

17. Vaughn, 1298. 

r. White, 963. 
Simpson College r. Tuttle, 180. 

V, Walby, 341. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f . 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXl 



Sims V. Bice, 850. 

V. Bond, 1614. 

r. Nat. Commercial Bank, 571. 

V, Stillwell, 262. 
Sinclair r. Baggaley, 65. 

V. Johnson, 104. 

V. Lynch, 983. 
Singleton r. McQuerry, 1389. 

r. Townsend, 12166. 
Sinsheimer r. Whitely, 1713o. 
Sioux City R. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 

1733a. 
Sisson 1*. Tomlinson, 1083. 
Sistermans r. Fields, 198, 815. 
Siylin i?. Frost, 203. 
Sizer r. Heacock, 1319. 
Sk&araas r. Finnegan, 68. 
Skelly r. Bristol Sav. Bank, 1233. 
Skelton v. Dunston, 602, 634, 719, 951. 
Sketoe t\ Ellis, 1426. 
Skidmore r. Clark, 775. 
Skilbeck r. Carbett, 1024. 

r. Garbett, 1054. 
Skilding r. Warren, 789. 
Skillman r. Titus, 1633. 
Skinker r. Butter Co., 1497. 
Scinner r. Church, 699, 719. 

c. Rajmor, 771. 

v. Somes, 743. 

V. Tinker, 913. 
Skowhegan Bank t\ Baker, 1197. 
Skrine r. Lewis, 32. 
Skyles r. Bollman, 1731. 
Slack r. Kirk, 704. 

r. Marysville R. Co., 1523, 1524. 
Slade V. Mutrie, 180, 1283. 
Slagle r. Bank of Valley, 704. 

r. Pow, 1312. 

r. Rust, 704. 
Slater t?. Church, 1743. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 106, 107. 
SlawBon r. Loring, 241, 303, 410, 413, 

414, 686. 
SlaytMMdc v. Jones, 1431. 
Slajmaker v. Gundacker, 1266. 
Slipper V, Stidstone, 1428. 
Sloan V. Campbell, 1281&. 

17. Gibbes, 703, 720, 1093, 1765. 

r. McCarty, 196. 

t7. Union Banking Co., 814, 815. 
Slooomb V. Fayetteville, 1522. 
Slocum V. Hooker, 238. 

V. Lizardi, 999, 999a. 

V. Pomeroy, 678, 899, 921. 
Slocumb V. Holmes, 1268. 
Sloman v. Bank of England, 1612. 

r. Cox, 1266&, 1411. 
Slotto r. Byers, 824. 
Small r. Clark, 1099. 

V. Clewley, 81a. 

V* Franklin Mining Co., 1623. 



Small 1*. Ober, 1295. 

V. Sloan, 1776. 

V. Smith, 790. 
Smalley t*. Bristol, 159. 

r. Wright, 130, 741. 
Smairs Admr. v. Lumpkin, 222. 
Smallwood r. Vernon, 104. 
Smart, Ex parte, 1343. 
Smead r. Indianapolis R. Co., 383. 

V, Trustees of Union Township, 
1524, 1550. 
Smedes r. Bank of Utica, 327, 331, 991. 
Smilie v. Stevens, 45, 1707. 
Smith V, Abbott, 508, 509. 

V, Alesworth, 1209. 

r. Allen, 39. 

V. American Coal Co., 1708f. 

r. Bank, 1178. 

1*. Bank of Washington, 1212. 

17. Bean, 69. 

V. Becket, 1172. 

V, Beltger, 1260. 

V. Bibber, 827. 

V, Black, 1296. 

V, Boehm, 55. 

i\ Bond, 240. 

V. Boulton, 983. 

r. Braine, 166, 808, 814, 815, 1469. 

V, Brooklyn Sav. Bank, 1711a. 

17. Brooks, 199a. 

V, Brown, 502. 

V, Brunk, 748. 

V. Buchanan, 875. 

V. Caldwell, 1215a. 

1?. Caro, 669, 717. 

r. Carter, 720a. 

17. Case, 69. 

V. Champion, 48, 925. 

17. Chester, 533, 1225, 1260, 1360, 
1364. 

17. Childress, 721. 

17. Chilton, 759a. 

17. Clark Co., 1512a, 1524. 

17. Clarke, 696. 

17. Clopton, 53, 728. 

17. Columbia State Bank, 197. 

17. Corege, 739a. 

17. Crane, 53. 

17. Cromer, 35. 

17. Cuff, 194. 

17. Curlee, 926, 1147. 

17. Dann, 1755, 17856. 

17. Dunham, 1393. 

17. Eals, 815. 

V, Eighth Ward Bank, 3265. 

17. Ellis, 44. 

r. Eureka Flour Mills, 382, 383. 

17. Felton, 360, 1181. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 286a. 

17. Fisher, 1116. 

17. Foley, 724a. 

17. Foster, 63. 



CXXXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Smith 

V. 
V. 
V, 
V, 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
17. 
V, 
V. 
V. 

1?. 
r. 

V, 

V. 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V. 
V. 

f. 

V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V. 
V, 



V. 

V. 
V, 
V. 



V. 
V. 

V. 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V, 
V. 
V, 



V. Gardner et al, 1228. 

Gibbs, 653. 

Gibson, 294. ' 

Goodrich, 68, 855. 

Hamie, 1182. 

Hardman, 248. 

Harper, 1266, 1266a, 1311. 

Hawkins, 1321. 

Hightower, 203. 

Hill, 963. 

Hiscock, 726a, 727, 803. 

Hyde, 1317. 

Ide, 1764. 

Ijams, 1215. 

Immigration Co., 387. 

Inhabitants of Cheshire, 422, 

427, 434. 
Isaacs, 184. 
Jansen, 777a. 
Jay, 1311. 
Johnson, 288a, 671. 
Jones, 1587, 1592. 
Kendall, 54, 104, 620, 1181a. 
Kinney, 164, 174. 
Kittridge, 179. 
Knox, 1307. 
Law, 382. 
Lawson, 392. 
Little, 928, 983, 1043. 
Livinffston, 775. 
Lockridge, 485, 1092. 
Lockwood, 1275. 
Lord, 80. 

Lounsdale, 1133, 1146. 
Loyd, 1252. 
Lusher, 371a. 
Mace, 1410. 
Marland, 53. 

Marsack, 93, 228, 242, 535, 536. 
Mason, 1316, 1340, 1342. 
Mayo, 232, 234. 
McCall, 1316. 
McClure, 63, 64, 65, 105, 493, 

1482, 1483. 
McLean, 644. 
McNair, 731, 1358, 1372a, 

14995. 
Mead, 867, 879. 
Melton, 488. 
Mercer, 676, 1225, 1360, 1371, 

1654a, 1658. 
Merrill, 703. 
Miller, 452, 971, 1276, 1330, 

1590, 1623, 1625. 
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 1733. 
Moberly, 854. 
Mohr, 815, 819. 
Morrill, 717. 
Mullett, 1008. 
Munch. 795a. 
Muncie Nat. Bank, 62, 62a, 

532. 



Smith V. Nevin, 728. 

t\ Nightingale, 53. 

V, Nissen, 506, 1254. 

17. Ojerhoem, 1114, 1134, 1764. 

V. Owens, 1260. 

17. Pearson, 1317. 

r. Peck, 1221. 

V. Pedley, 253. 

V, Philbrick, 640, 1180. 

V. Pickering, 260. 

V. Pickham, 669, 1092. 

17. Poillon, 1041. 

17. Poplar, 815. 

t7. Rawson, 663a. 

V. Roach, 449, 454, 1045. 

V, Rockwell, 1473, 1480. 

V, Rowland, 1081. 

r. Sac County, 815. 

17. Savin, 833. 

17. Sawyer, 1254. 

17. Screven, 1251. 

r. Shaw, 1454. 

r. Sheldon, 370, 1300a. 

17. Silvers, 62. 

r. Sloan, 358a. 

V. Smith, 245, 25, 86, 875, 918, 
1398, 1580. 

17. Spaulding, 249. 

17. Spinolla, 886. 

17. Stein, 1215, 1698a. 

17. Strader, 366. 

V. Stranger, 288. 

17. Taylor, 92. 

17. Terry, 1418. 

17. Thurston, 63. 

17. Town of Greenwich, 1516, 1537. 

17. Traders' Nat. Bank, 458, 789. 

17. Trammell, 1352a. 

17. Union Bank, 1585a. 

17. United States, 1312. 

17. Van Blarcom, 41. 

17. Vertue, 509. 

17. Walker, 87, 1479. 

17. Warren, 1316. 

17. Weld, 1387. 

17. Weston, 365. 

17. Whiting, 266, 684, 685, 979a, 
980. 

17. Winter, 1321. 

17. Wood, 1247. 
Smithwick c. Anderson, 1217. 
Smock 17. Pierson, 188. 

17. Ripley, 62. 
Smoot 17. Judd, 879. 
Smyley v. Head, 1314. 
Smyth 17. Scott, 719. 
Snaith 17. Mingay, 12. 65, 869. 
Snead 17. Coleman. 262, 263. 
Snee 17. Prescott, 698, 1730, 1744. 
Sneed 17. Mitchell, 684. 

17. Sabinal Mining k Milling Co., 
1387. 



Refereneea are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXlll 



Sneed r. White, 1311. 

r. Wiester, 1300. 
Snell V. Northaide Mill Co., 707. 
Snellgrave r. Bailey, 24. 
Snevely r. Read, 182. 
Sniyely v. Johnson, 1759. 

V. MathesoD, 358a. 
Snodgrass et al, v. Sweetser, 1654a, 

1655. 
Snow r. Peacock, 772, 1463. 

r. Perkins, 909, 910, 979, 980. 
Snyder v. Bovaird, 434. 

r. Hargus, 193. 

r. Moore, 573. 

r. Mt. Sterling Nat. Bank, 206. 

V, Oatman, 728. 

V, Reno, 731. 

V. Riley, 726a, 784a. 

r. Studebaker, 93. 

r. Van Doren, 142, 143, 147, 1388. 

V. Willey, 204. 
Snyder ft Dull p. Crutchfield, 883. 
Soares p. Clyn, 697. 
Society for Savings v. New London, 

389, 1500, 1509. 
Soffe V. Gallagher, 1262, 1265. 
Sohn V. Morton, 1326. 
Solarte r. Palmer, 981, 985. 
Solenberger v, Gilbert, 81b. 
Solinger v. Earle, 194. 
SoUenberger t*. Stephens, 164, 810, 814. 
Soloman r. Brodie, 812. 

V. First Nat. Bank of Meridian, 
1343. 

r. Turner, 193. 
Solomon Solar Salt Co. r. Barber, 19. 
Solomons r. Bank of England, 285, 822, 
1680, 1683. 

V. Jones, 157.^ 
Solser r. Brock, 1309. 
Somers v. Loaey, 800a. 
Somerrille v. Brown, 800a. 
SoDdheim r. Gilbert, 195a, 197, 356, 

807. 
Sonnethiel v. Skinner, 50. 
Soper V, Henry Co., 15190. 

r. Peck, 851. 
Soule F. Bonney, 196. 

r. Chase, 1283. 

V, Soule, 1267. 
Soaneman v. Loet, 248. 
South, Ex parte, 16a (4), 23. 
South Boston Iron Co. v. Brown, 176. 
Southall r. Rigg, 816, 177. 
Southard v. Porter, 725a, 745. 
Sontfa Carolina Bank r. Case, 363, 364. 
Sonthcot r. Watson, 1664. 
Sontherland v. Whitaker, 1309. 
Southern Bank v. Mechanics' Say. 

Bank, 1198. 



Southern Life Ins., etc., Co. v. Gray, 

1188, 1189. 
Southern Ry. Co. v, Kinchey A Co., 

17336, 1743. 
South Mo. Land Co. v. Rhodes, 922. 
Southwick r. Ely, 573. 

V. First Nat. Bank, 366. 
Sowerby v. Butcher, 300. 
Spadine v. Reed, 568. 
Spalding v. Vandercook, 202. 
Spann v. Balzell, 1048. 
Sparhawk r. Willis, 1186a. 
Sparks v. Coats, 1181a. 
Spartali v. Benecke, 1279a. 
Spaulding v. Andrews, 490, 501, 504, 
567, 568. 

V. Evans, 103. 

r. Kelly, 357. 

V, Putnam, 713a. 
Spear p. Ladd, 394. 

p. Pratt, 497, 497a. 
Spears v. Bond, 55. 

p. Lederberger, 1245. 
Specht P. Bundorf, 46, 156. 

p. Howard, 70. 
Speck V. Pullman Co., 782. 
Spence p. Crockett, 959. 
Spencer p. Ballou, 331, 791. 

p. Blaisdell, 1673a. 

p. Bank of Salina, 1121. 

p. Carstarphen, 665. 

p. Halpem, 669a, 688o. 

p. Harvey, 10926, 1104, 1131, 
1133, 1135. 

P. Mobile R. Co., 1503. 

p. Robinson, 692. 

p. Sloan, 710. 
Sperry p. Horr, 61, 62a, 123. 

p. Spaulding, 815. 
Spielberger v. Thompson, 1200. 
Spies p. Gilmore, 713e, 1180. 

p. Newberry, 983. 

p. Rosonstock, 81a, 195a. 
Spiller p. Creditors, 1252. 
Spinette p. Atlas Steamship Co., 1741. 
Spinning p. Sullivan, 741. 
Spitler p. James, 90, 144. 
Splitberger p. Kohn, 902. 
Spooner p. Gardiner, 1077. 

p. Hilfish, 246, 24f. 

p. Holmes, 441, 775, 776, 1489, 
1500. 
Sprague p. Fletcher, 1095a, 1096. 

V. Sprague, 162, 164. 

p. Tyson, 962, 1030. 
Spratt p. Hobhouse, 1687. 
Spreckels p. Bender, 812, 1198, 1229. 
Sprickill r. Martin, 1250. 
Sprigg p. Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 1332. 

p. Cuny, 676, 1198. 
Spring p. George, 1311. 



CXXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked {. 



Spring V. Lovett, 81. 

V, McCoy, 189, 1343. 
Spring Brook Chemical Co. v, Dunn, 

812. 
Springfield v. Haulenbeck, 855a. 
Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 150, 154, 

1410. 
Springfield Ins. Co. v. Peck, 1637, 1703. 
Sprinkle v. Taylor, 289. 
Sproat t*. Mathews, 504, 511, 549. 
Spurgeon v. Smiths, 1310. 

f. Swain, 496, 504. 
Spurgin v. McPheeters, 110, 173, 174, 

190. 
Spurlock V. Union Bank, 1147, 1149. 
Spyker v. Spence, 396. 
Staats 17. Howlett, 361. 
Stack V, Beach, 719. 
Stacy V, Baker, 895. 

V, Dane County Bank, 341, 343. 

V. Kemp, 69. 
Stafford v. Bacon, 182. 

V. Fargo, 725a. 

V. Rice, 1217. 

t?. Yates, 987. 
Stahl r. Berger, 1401. 
Stainback v. Bank of Virginia, 280, 
282, 283, 457, 587, 955, 964, 
969, 1046. 

V, Read, 276, 280. 
Stalker v. McDonald, 758, 827, 831o. 
Stam V. Kerr, 1260, 1262. 
Stamper r. Gay, 1181a. 
Standage t?. Creighton, 11096, 1158, 

1167. 
Standard Cement Co. v, Windham 

Nat. Bank, 789, 812. 
Standard Milling Co. t\ White Line 

Co., 1738, 1740a, 1741. 
Standard Oil Co. v. Snow, 1272, 1274. 
Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 

960, 972, 987, 1038, 1044. 
Stanford v, Horwitz, 186. 

f. Pruet, 868. 
Stanley v. McElrath, 972, 1003, 1260. 
Stanton f. A. & C. R. Co., 1491. 

V, Alabama R. Co., 50a. 

V. Blossom, 987, 988, 990, 992, 
1075, 1212. 
Stanwood r. Stanwood, 257, 1184. 
Staples V. Bedford, etc.. Bank, 74. 

t?. Franklin Bank, 1209, 1671. 

V. Nott, 868, 879, 895, 919. 

V. O'Kines, 1075, 1172. 
Stapleton v, Louisville Banking Co., 

62, 62a. 
Stapylton v. Taegue, 174. 
Star Ins. Co. v. Bank, 1357. 
Star Pad Co. v. Greenwood, 203. 
Star Wagon Co. i\ Swezy, 1109a, 1326, 

1788. 



Starin v. Town of Genoa, 1520, 1523, 
1532, 1533, 1552, 1555a. 

9. United States Bank, 339. 
Stark V, Olsen, 62. 
Starke v. Alford, 176, 1181a, 1205. 

V. Cheeseman, 128. 

V. Dicks, 193. 
Starr i?. Metcalf, 1383. 

t;. Milliken, 770. 

V, Richmond, 1252. 
Starrett v. Burkhalter, 1318. 
Staylor v. Williams, 640, 1180. 
State 17. Cardozo, 442. 

V, Cilley, 1386. 

1?. Crawford, 1567. 

17. Dubuclet, 438. 

t\ Dunn, 1346. 

V. Farrell, 1345. 

f. Fitzpatrick, 823. 

17. Givens, 1345. 

17. Glover, 422. 

17. Green, 1523a, 1524. 

r. Hardware Co., 177, 393. 

V. Haws, 422. 

17. Hesseitine, 1300. 

17. Hodges, 290, 292, 1350. 

17. Huff, 427. 

V, Humphreys, 1346. 

V, Loomis, 1714. 

17. Madison, 1522. 

17. McCormick, 1569. 

17. Midland State Bank, 1612a. 

17. Patterson, 1346. 

17. Peck, 856. 

V, Po'k, 1387. 

17. Potter, 856. 

17. Saline Co., 1535. 

17. Samuels, 1349. 

17. Scongal, 1668. 

17. Stebbins, 513, 664a, 741. 

V, Stratton, 1395. 

V. Strayer, 156. 

17. Sullivan, 1524. 

r. Sutterfield, 1535a. 

17. Taylor, 62, 1346. 

V, Town of Clark, 1524. 

V, Trustees of Union Township, 
1545. 

17. Turner, 1350. 

17. Van Home, 1545, 1548. 

f. Warren, 1345. 

V. Webster, 1345. 

17. Wenkelmeier, 1535a. 

17. Williams, 1344. 
State ex rel. t\ Adams Co., 1522. 
State ex rel. Banking Co. r. Edmunds, 

960. 
State ex rel. Parks i?. Hughes, 1090, 

1092. 
State Bank v, Ayres, 1034. 

V, Bank of Capitol, 331. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF GASES. 



CXXXV 



State Bank r. Burton Gardner Co., 81a, 
1769. 

c. Coquiilard, 767. 

r. Evans, 856. 

I?. Fearing, 672, 1357. 

r. Hayes, 9. 

r. Hennen, 1016. 

r. Hurd, 639. 

r. Kain, 392. 

r. McCoy, 214. 

V. Napier, 656, 667. 

r. Rhoads, 1217. 

r. Slaughter, 999a. 

r. Smith, 187. 

r. Stratton, 150. 

r. Van Horn, 1685. 

r. Wheeler, 392. 
State Bank of Lock Haven v. Smith, 

187, 1311. 
State Bank of Taber t). Kelly, 322. 
State of Arkansas v. Little Rock, etc., 

R. Co., 1551. 
State of Iowa r. Wapello County, 1523, 

1560. 
State of Illinois, r. Delafield, 441, 442, 

444. 
State of Maine r. Boies, 443, 1189. 
State of Missouri v. Bank of Missouri, 

441. 
State of North Dakota v. Nelson Co., 

1522. 
State Capitol Bank r. Thompson, 69, 

70. 
State Nat Bank r. Bennett, 206. 

V, Bryant & Mathers, 1713. 

V, Cason, 790. 

17. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 1740a. 

V. Flathers, 769a. 

V, Haylen, 694, 1781. 

€. Reilly, 1612a. 

r. Smith, 248. 
State Sav. Assn. i?. Boatmen's Bank, 
334a, 1621, 1637. 

V, Hunt, 824. 
State Sav. Bank v. Baker, 669, 1303, 
1312. 

€. Schwartz, 865. 

r. Shaffer, 1384^ 1413. 

r. Yo\ing, 1799. 
Staten I. R. Co., Matter of, 1626. 
State Solicitors Co. r. Savage, 1397. 
State Trust Co. v, Owen Paper Co., 

81b. 
Staven et dl, v. Missimer, 1316. 
Stavnow r. Kenefick, 358a. 
Stayner r. Joice, 1376. 
Steadman r. Duhamel, 14. 
Steamboat Charlotte v. Hammond, 

1260, 1267, 1282. 
Steamship Co. r. Heron, 1708<2. 
Steams r. Bumham, 884. 
Stebbing v, Spicer, 100. 



Stebbins v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 1708e. 
V, Union Pac. R. Co., 50, 104. 
Stedman v, Gooch, 1019, 1272. 

V. Rochester Loan i Banking Co., 
769a. 
Steel V. Davis Co., 430. 
Steele r. Curie, 885. 

V. McDowell, 263. 

V. McKinlay, 143a, 485, 497b, 504, 
703a. 

V, Soul^ 1215b. 
Steen v, Finley, 1536, 1539, 1548, 1550, 
1551, 1558, 1560, 1564. 

V. Stretch, 753. 
Stein t?. Mobile, 1522, 1523. 

r. Yglesias, 724, 725, 726. 
Steinbeck v. Treasurer, etc., 427. 
Steiner & Lobman v, Jeffries et al,, 

571, 1250. 
Steiner r. Nat. Bank, 1221. 

r. Steurer Land A Lumber Co., 
386. 
Steines v, Franklin County, 1536a. 
Steinhart v. Nat. Bank, 1260. 
Steinman r. Magnus, 1331. 

1?. Mobile, 1523. 
Steinweg r. Erie R. Co., 1732, 1740a. 
Steinwender r. The Aspasia, 1741. 
Steman t*. Harrison, 550, 551. 
Stenson & Co. v. Lee, 305. 
Stephen v, Thompson, 1295. 
Stephens r. Board of Education, 366. 

V. Davis, 1409. 

V, Monongahela Nat. Bank, 189, 
790, 1335a. 

V. Spiers, 196. 
Stephenson r. Clayton, 859. 

V. Dickson, 1041. 

V, Elver, 1411. 

V, King, 24a. 

V, Primrose, 1018, 1133. 

V, Richards, 1227. 

V. Woodhull, 1230. 
Sterling r. Fleming, 1221. 

V, Marietta, etc., Co., 393, 1324, 
1326. 
Sterling Wrench Co. v. Armstrong, 

1288, 1290. 
Stem V, Germania Nat. Bank, 725a. 
Sternbach v. Friedman, 1343. 
Sternenberg v. Morgan, 365. 
Sterry r. Robinson, 929. 
Stettheim v, Meyer, 831c. 
Steuben County Bank v. Alberger, 365. 
Stevens t?. Androscoggin Water Power 
Co., 513. 

r. Beals, 254, 681. 

I?. Blunt, 43. 

V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1732, 1737. 

V. Campbell, 832. 

V, Chadwick, 1281, 1281b. 

V. Graham, 1376, 1384, 1386, 1401. 



CXXXVl 



TABLE OF GASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Stevens v. Gregg, 895. 

V, Hannans, 668c, 725a, 1238, 
1241, 1294. 

V. Johnson, 59. 

r. Lord, 158. 

V, Lynch, 1148, 1158, 1161, 1321. 

V, McLachlan, 358a. 

V. Cakes, 1312. 

V, Park, 1587. 

V, Parsons, 713a. 

V. Stevens, 24. 

V, Strong, 139. 
Stevenson t*. Bank, 340. 

t\ O'Neill, 700, 797. 

V. Richards, 1228. 

V. Short et al., 1221. 

V. Unkefer, 766. 
Stewart v. Ahrenfeldt, 196. 

V. Allison, 587. 

V. Bramhall, 674.- 

V, Earl of Galloway, 188. 

V, Eden, 588, 640, 1001, 1025, 
1029a, 1049, 1310, 1322. 

i;. Ellice, 920. 

V. l^'uUerton, 45a. 

V. Gould, 384. 

r. Hidden, 1285. 

V, Jenkins, 249. 

V. Kennett, 988, 990. 

V. Lansing, 1512a. 

V. Lathrop Mfg. Co., 751. 

V, Life Ins. Co., 1259. 

V. Lispenard, 211. 

V, Lord Kirkwall, 247. 

17. Salamon, 87. 

V. Smith, 728, 1587, 1652. 

V. State, 1664. 

V, Virginia, 448. 
Stickney v. Mohler, 187. 

V. Moore, 1513. 
Stiles V, Eastman, 1335a. 

V. Vandewater, 80. 
Still well V. Aaron, 1338. 

1?. Patton, 1419. 
Stilwell V. Craig, 47. 
Stimson v. Vrooman, 1646. 

V. Whitney, 365, 368, 369a, 3696, 
775. 
Stinson v. Sachs, 1187. 
Stivers t?. Prentice, 590, 635. 
Stix V. Mathews, 879, 995, 1045. 
St. Louis Bank v, Altheimer, 998, 1016. 

V. Harrison, 195a. 
St. Louis R. Co. V. Camden Bank, 36. 
St. Louis Roller Mill Co. v. Despatch 

Co., 1730a. 
St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 336, 

340a, 1621, 1636a. 
St. Paul Roller Mill Co. v. Despatch 

Co., 1730, 1734. 
Stocken v. Collin, 983, 1052. 
Stockman v. Parr, 978. 



Stocks V. Scott, 201. 
Stockton Bros. t*. Reid, 186. 
Stockton Savings & Loan Soc. v, Gid- 

dings, 202, 782. 
Stockwell V. Bramble, 490, 491. 
Stoddard v. Kimball, 757, 790, 827, 
832a. 

f7. Penniman, 176. 
Stoessiger v, S. E. R. Co., 92. 
Stofflet V, Strome, 384. 
Stokes V, Anderson, 67a. 

V, Lewis, 182. 
Stoll V. Sheldon, il81. 
Stollenwerck v. Thacher, 17345, 1734c. 
Stoller r. Coates, 336. 
Stone V. Bishop, 24a. 

V, Chamberlaine, 370, 1300. 

17. Dean, 800a. 

V. Elliott, 800a. 

17. Hammell, 1339, 1342. 

17. Marsh, 1612. 

17. Metcalf, 112, 153, 164. 

17. Peake, 203. 

«. Seymour, 1152. 

17. Smith, 207. 

17. Talbot, 1252. 
Stoneman r. Pyle, 62. 
Stoner v. Ellis, 1418. 
Stoney 17. American Life Ins. Co., 389. 
Stopyiton 17. Cre des Phosphates de 

France, 1622. 
Storer v. Logan, 550, 551, 552, 554, 

561. 
Storr V. Wakefield, 62. 
Storts 17. George, 1437. 
Story t\ Atkins, 162. 

17. Lamb, 43, 525. 

17. McKay, 898. 
Stothart 17. Parker, 611, 1172. 
Stotsenberg 17. Fordice, 1226. 
Stott 17. Alexander, 1035. 

V, Fairlamb, 184. 
Stough 17. Ogden, 1421a. 

17. Ponca Mills Co., 796. 
Stout 17. Ashton, 1479. 

17. Benoist, 1361, 1700. 

17. Cloud, 1401. 
Stoutenburg 17. Lybrand, 196. 
Stoutimore 17. Clark, 93. 
Stovall 17. Border Grange Bank, 703, 

1332. 
Stover 17. Hamilton, 88. 
Stow 17. Yarwood, 1423. 
Stowe 17. Merrill, 550. 
Stowell V. Raymond, 713o. 
Stoyell 17. Stoyell, 80. 
Strachan 17. Muxton, 79. 
Straker 17. Graham, 466, 474. 
Strang v. Wilson, 1217. 
Strange v. Wigney, 1463. 
Stratton 17. Allen, 382. 

r. McMakin, 205. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXVll 



Straughan v. Fairchild, 827, 831a. 
Straus r. Hensey, 731, 1226. 
Strauss v. United Telegraph Co., 1500. 
Strawbridge t*. Robinson, 12. 
Streeter tr. Poor, 284. 
Strieker v. Tinkham, 879. 
Strickland r. Holbrook, 86&. 

r. Railroad Co., 1523. 

V. Vance, 248. 
Stringer t*. Adams, 63. 
Stringfield r. Vivian, 1276. 
Stroh r. Hickman, 296. 
Strohecker r. Coben, 568. 
Strong r. Foster, 1337. 

F. Hart, 1271. 

r. Jackson, 8346, 835. 

r. Strauss, 271. 
Struthers v. Kendall, 1399. 
Strutts f. Stray er, 1309. 
Stuart I'. West, 800a. 
Stubbs r. Colt, 868. 

r. Goodall, 719. 
Stuber r. Schack, 1317a. 
Stuckert r. Anderson, 654, 654a. 
Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. r. Langson, 

812, 
Studenbaker r. Manufacturing Co., 

799. 
Studenmire r. Ware, 185. 
Stults r. Silva, 45a. 
Stump .9. Napier, 1217. 
Sturdevant Bank r. Peterman, 1260. 
Sturdivant r. Hull, 403, 404. 
Sturdy r. Henderson, 626, 1671. 
Sturges r. Keith, 286. 
Sturgeon Sav. Bank r. Riggs, 1250. 
Sturgis v. Bank of Circleville, 392. 

r. Crowninshield, 875. 

r. Derrick, 1115, 1120. 

r. Fourth Nat. Bank, 504. 
Sturtevant r. City of Alton, 1522. 

r. Ford, 725a, 726. 

r. Hall, 402. 

V. Jacques, 271. 

r. Liberty, 435. 

r. Orser, 1730a. 
Sturz r. Fisher, 1272. 
Statu r, Strager, 1312, 1373, 1375. 
Styles r. Wardle, 83. 
Succession of Fandrien, 182. 
Succession of Weil, 674. 
Suckley r. Fnrse, 1328. 
Snffell r. Bank of England, 1400. 
Soffolk Bank v, Lincoln Bank, 1685, 

1686. 
Suffolk Say. Bank v, Boston, 1503. 
Suiter r. Nat. Bank, 752, 815. 
Sullivan r. Bonesteel, 196. 

r. Deadman, 698, 962, 1084. 

V. Morrow, 1311. 

r. Rudisill. 1387. 
Sally r. CampbeU, 1294, 1296. 



Sulzbacher v. Bank of Charleston, 1118. 
Summerhill r. Tappo, 1335. 
Summers v, Barrett, 1769. 

V. Mills, 918. 
Sumner v. Bowen, 968. 

V. Sumner, 196. 
Sunderland r. Bell, 203. 
Supervisors of Mercer County v. Hub- 
bard, 1496. 
Supervisors v. Randolph, 1560. 

r. Schenck, 317, 319, 386, 389, 391, 
1500, 1523, 1537, 1543, 1545, 
1546. 
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliot, 1708. 
Suse V. Pompe, 669. 
Susong V. Williams, 127. 
Susquehanna Bank v. Evans, 717. 
Susquehanna Valley Bank t*. Loomis, 

669b, 1113b. 
Sussex Bank t*. Baldwin, 572, 636, 637, 

992, 1039, 1106. 
Sutcliffe V. Humphreys, 1235. 

V, McDowell, 1079, 1081. 
Sutliff V. Attwood, 1260. 
Sutton V. Baldwin, 1623. 

17. Beckwith, 859. 

V, Toomer, 619, 1385. 

V. Warren, 254. 
Sutro V. Dunn, 1550. 

f. Pettit, 1555. 

V. Rhodes, 734a, 1550, 1555, 1655b. 
Suydam r. Westfall, 95, 1236. 
Swall r. Clarke, 769. 
Swampscott Machine Co. t*. Rice, 1054. 
Swan V, Hodges, 1130. 

V, Nesmith, 314. 

V. North Brit. Austr. Co., 851. 

r. Steele, 356. 
Swanell t\ Watson, 850. 
Swansey r. Breck, 513. 
Swanzey r. Parker, 731. 
S warts V. Cohen, 418. 
Swartwout v. Payne, 205, 751. 
Swartz t\ Redfield, 996. 
Swasey v. Vanderheyd, 225. 
Swayne v. Britton, 929. 
Swayze t\ Britton, 960, 987, 991. 
Sweat V. Hall, 1184. 
Sweeney r. Easter, 334a, 336, 698, 
698a, 698d. 

V. Thickston, 61, 62. 
Sweet i\ Carver Co., 429, 432. 

V, Chapman, 751. 

V, James, 1282. 

r. McAllister, 703. 

V, Powers, 1115. 

r. Swift, 995. 

V, Titus, 1623. 

V. Woodin, 713a, 1115. 
Sweeting r. Fowler, 100. 

r. Halse, 549. 
Sweetland r. Creigh, 56. 



CXXXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



Swem p. Newell, 1341. 
Swift V. Smith, 775. 

9. Stevens, 1471, 1478. 

V. Tyson, 10, 174, 183, 184, 775, 
829a, 831a, 831&, 1503. 

V, Whitney, 56. 
Swilley v, Lyon, 95. 
Swing V. Clarksville, 196. 
Swinyard v, Bowes, 1176, 1262, 1271. 
Swire v, Redman, 1312, 1337. 
Swope V. Leffingwell, 1221, 1222. 

17. Ross, 180, 501. 
Sydnor t?. Boyd, 203. 
Sykes v, Giles, 1270, 1271. 

V. Lewis, 1431. 
Sylvester t?. Crapo, 1220. 

V. Downer, 710, 712, 713a. 

17. Staples, 108. 
Sylvester et al. v, Crohan, 9, 868, 908. 
Sylvester Bleckley Co. v. Alewine, 62, 

62a, 709, 713, 1713a. 
Syme v. Brown, 703, 713a. 
Symonds v, Parminter, 1205. 
Syracuse Bank v. Davis, 1565, 1588. 
Syracuse, etc., R. Co. 17. Collins, 1260, 

1589, 1590, 1591. 
Syracuse, etc., Co. 17. Rollins, 1537. 

T. 

Taber i7. Cannon, 294. 
Tabor 17. Merchants' Bank, 814, 832, 
854, 855. 

17. Miles, 728. 

V. Perrott, 341. 
Tacoma 17. Ger.-Am. Bank, 1603. 
Tacoma Mill Co. v. Sherwood, 719. 
Taft t\ Boyd, 1260, 12666. 

17. Brewster, 307. 

17. Church, 833. 

17. Pittsford, 422. 

V. Quinsigamond Nat. Bk., 340c. 

u. Sergeant, 'Z35. 
Taft's Case, 1345. 
Taggart v. First Nat. Bank, 1617. 
Tailor Furnishing Co. v. Murphy, 1102. 
Talbot V. Bank of Rochester, 1364. 

17. Dent, 1523. 

17. First Nat. Bank, 754. 

17. Gay, 1787, 1788. 

17. Hedge, 1219. 

V. Nat. Bank, 1118, 1226. 
Tallahassee Man. Co., In re, 812. 
Talleyrand 17. Boulanger, 886, 907. 
Talmage r. Milliken, 365, 370. 
Tancil 17. Seaton, 1672, 1674. 
Tannant 17. Rocky Mountain Nat. 

Bank, 298. 
Tanner 17. Christian, 299. 

17. Gude, 1303, 1305. 
Tansey r. Peterson, 560. 
Tapley v. Martens, 1623. 



Tappan 17. Ely, 152. 
Tarbell 17. Sturtevant, 1192. 
Tarbox 17. Childs, 1623. 

17. Gorman, 1200. 
Tardy I7. Boyd, 205, 1064, 1070, 1147, 

1163. 
Tarin 17. Morris, 1235. 
Tarleton 17. AUhusen, 1284. 

17. Southern Bank, 217, 218. 
Tanner v, Evansville Furniture Co., 

1328. 
Tash 17. Adams, 391. 
Tassel 17. Cooper, 1642. 

17. Lewis, 616, 627, 743, 1327. 
Tassey 17. Church, 513. 
Tate 17. Hilbert, 26, 491, 1618. 

17. Sullivan, 963. 
Tatlock 17. Harris, 23, 136, 137, 747. 
Tatum r. Kelly, 200. 

17. Morgan, 1316, 1317a. 
Taunton Bank 17. Richardson, 1048, 

1106. 
Taup 17. Drew, 1245. 
Taylor v. Am. Freehold Co., 248, 922. 

17. Bank of Illinois, 954. 

V. Beck, 807, 1217. 

17. Binney, 1782. 

17. Bowles, 769. 

17. Breden, 612. 

17. Briggs, 740, 1271. 

17. Bruce, 191, 752, 762a. 

t7« Burgess, 1334. 

17. Craig, 854. 

V. Cribb, 769a. 

17. Croker, 93, 227, 228, 635, 682. 

17. Curry, 797. 

17. Dansby, 23<i. 

17. Davis, 271. 

f. Dobbins, 74. 

17. Drake, 569. 

17. French, 710, 719, 1093, 1106, 
1134, 1139, 1765. 

17. Great Ind. P. R. Co., 1708fif. 

17. Harmison, 63. 

17. Higgins, 1205. 

17. Hillyer, 366, 369. 

17. Jacoby, 626, 1209. 

17. Jones, 1152, 1158. 

17. Mathews, 725a. 

17. McCune, 713d. 

17. Moseley, 1379, 

17. Newman, 108, 508. 

17. Page, 834. 

17. Plumer, 336. 

17. Purcell, 214. 

17. Reese, 1190, 1197, 1251. 

17. Reger, 94, 361, 403, 405. 

17. Ross, 1766. 

17. Sanford, 1250. 

17. Shelton, 307. 

17. Sip, 1578, 1587. 

V, Slater, 1260. 



References are to 
poragrQpka marked §. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXIX 



Taylor r. Smith, 81b, 156. 

p. Snyder, 640, 1123, 1145, 1180. 

r. Surgit, 267. 

r. Taylor, 1377, 1535a. 

V. Thomas, 68. 

17. Wetmore, 1785, 17856. 

r. WUliams, 1623. 

r. Young, 1066, 1595. 
Tebbetts v. Dowd, 1148, 1152, 1156, 

1167. 
Tebbs V. Bailroad Co., 1739. 
Teberg v. Swenson, 1223. 
Tedens r. Schumers, 1228. 
Teed v, Elworth, 227. 
Telford r. Patton, 24a, 1698a. 
Tonple V, Baker, 713d. 

r. SeaTer, 683. 
Temple St. Ry. Co. v. Hellman, 381, 

383. 
Templeton r. Brown, 241. 

p. Poole, 724a. 
Ten Eiyck v. Vanderpoel, 270. 
Tenney v. Porter, 205, 867. 

17. Prince, 694, 1760. 
Tensen r. Francis, 726. 
Terbell v. Jones, 1055. 
Terry v. Allis, 741. 

r. Farago, 294. 

V, Hazlewood, 1373a. 

r. Parker, 1047. 

r. Piatt, 69, 366, 374. 

p. Ragsdale, 1646: 

r. Taylor, 814. 
Tescher v. Merea, 99, 796, 812. 
Tevia p. Young, 92. 
Texarkana & Ft. Smith R. Co. v. 

Bemis Lumber Co., 386, 807. 
Texas v. Hardenberg, 441, 724a, 782. 

p. White, 441.* 
Texas Banking Co. r. Turnley, 724a, 

7690, 782, 824. 1500. 
Texas' Land Co. f. Carroll, 50, 303, 

1198. 
Texira p. Evans, 148. 
Thacker v. Thacker, 248. 
Thackeray r. Blockett, 1079, 1172, 

1464. 
Thame v. Boast, 1235. 
Thamling r. Duffey, 815, 8156. 
Tharp «?. Parker, 1325. 
Thatcher p. Bank of the State, 326a, 
389. 

r. Dinsmore, 186, 271, 1260. 

V. Stevens, 707a, 712. 

P. West River Nat. Bank, 189, 
790. 
Thayer r. Buffum, 1183. 

p. CroBsman, 1217. 

P. Elliott, 867. 

P. Goss, 36&6. 

V. King, 1317, 1478, 1482. 



Thayer v. Manly, 776, 1468a. 

p. Middlesex Mut. Ins. Co., 388. 

p. Montgomery County, 1492a. 
The Confederate Mote Case, 87. 
The Bark Edwin, 1733. 
The David and Caroline, 1741. 
The Delaware, 1729a, 1733. 
The Distilled Spirits, 802. 
The Hampton, 218. 
The Invincible, 1741. 
The Juniata Paton, 1741. 
The J. W. Brown, 1729. 
The John W. Cannon, 724a. 
The Joseph Grant, 1733. 
The Kimball, 1260. 
The Lady Franklin, 1729, 1729a. 
The Loan, 1729a, 1733. 
The Lykus, 41. 
The May Flower, 1732. 
The Olbers, 1742. 
The Onrust, 1742. 
The Oriilamme, 1742. 
The Phoenicia, 1741. 
The Prize Cases, 218. 
The Protection, 1740. 
The Rebecca, 1748. 
The Sally Magee, 1743. 
The Santee, 1739. 

The Thames, 17336, 1735, 1740a, 1751. 
The Vaughn, 1751. 
The Venice, 218. 
The William Bagaley, 218. 
Thetford v. McClintock, 200. 
Thicknesse v. Bromelowe, 361. 
Thiedemann p. Goldsmith, 174. 

p. Knox, 1747a. 
Thiel V. Conrad. 643. 
Thillman v. Guible, 609, 9956. 
Thimbleby p. Barron, 1291. 
Thin p. Richards & Co., 1741. 
Thing V. Libbey, 234. 
Third Nat. Bank v, Allen, 1372, 1661. 

V, Angell, 573, 812. 

V, Ash worth, 1148. 

P. Boyd, 286a. 

p. Clark, 721. 

p. Lange, 271, 713a, 795a. 

V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 672, 
677, 1652, 1655, 1661. 

P. Nat. Bank, 698c. 

17. Shields, 833. 

P. Snyder, 358a. 

p. Tinsley, 195a, 819. 

p. Vicksburg Bank, 341. 
Thomas v. Bishop, 413. 

p. City of Richmond, 14916. 

17. Davenport, 308a. 

p. Dickinson, 1269. 

17. Exchange, 1638. 

V, Hewes, 306. 

V, Jennings, 713(1. 



cxl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked %. 



Thomas i\ Kinsey, 724a, 725a. 
t\ Leland, 1556. 
t>. Lewis, 24, 24a. 
V, Linn, 834. 
r. Mayo, 1096a. 
V, Merritt, 713. 
r. Miller, 188. 
V. Newton, 816. 
V. Port Huron, 1523. 
V, Ruddell, 852. 
V. Shoemaker, 624, 1209. 
1?. Supervisors, 1623. 
t?. Thomas, 174, 573. 
r. Todd, 737, 1672a, 1675, 1676a. 
t?. Watkins, 667. 
Thomason v. Boyd, 234. 

r. Lee Co., 1509&. 
Thompson v, Appleby, 1005. 
i;. Armstrong, 816. 
V, Briggs, 1300. 
r. Brown, 1253. 
V, Building Assn., 1181a. 
17. Campbell, 1326. 
v. City of Peru, 1524. 
V. Commercial Bank, 657. 
r. Cumming, 930. 
V. Downing, 1745a, 1748. 
V, Emery, 747. 
V. First Nat. Bank, 752. 
V, Flower, 676, 1205. 
t?. Gray, 1328. 
t7. Hanson, 196.« 
V, Harrison, 195. 
v. Hoagland, 76. 
f?. Ketchum, 80, 88, 599, 639, 879, 

880, 892. 
V, Kyle, 894, 919, 924. 
r. Lay, 233. 
V, Lee County, 10a, 389, 391, 729, 

1489, 1497, 1500, 1509. 1513, 

1514, 1520, 1523, 1527, 1557, 

1560, 1661. 
r. Love, 80, 775. 
17. Lowe, 354. 

r. Maddox, 184, 831c, 832, 834. 
V. McKee, 719. 

1'. Percival, 1289a, 1299, 1300a. 
v. Perkins, 315, 336. 
t?. Perrine, 10a, 724, 729, 1496, 

1552, 1557, 1662. 
t?. Piekel, 1458a. 
t?. Pitman, 1646, 1648. 
V, Posten, 790. 
f. Powles, 918, 923. 
t*. Rathbun, 145. 
r. Riggs, 334. 
V. Searcy, 420, 427. 
V. Shepherd, 726a. 
r. Sioux Falls Nat. Bank, 1652. 
r. Sloan, 58. 
t7. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 775. 



Thompson r. Thorne^ 81&, 418. 

V. Toland, 1708^. 

1?. Warren, 172. 

t;. West, 816. 

r. Wharton, 188. 

f. Wheeler & W. Co.. 203. 

V, Williams, 972, 973, 975, 979a, 
996. 

V. Wilson, 884. 
Thompson-Houston Elec. Co, r. Capi- 
tal Elec. Co., 833. 
Thomson v. Bank of Bristol, 1603. 

V. Gartner, 1468a. 
Thorington v. Smith, 87, 169. 
Thorn f. Pinkham, 177. 

t?. Rice, 1013. 
Thornburg r. Emmons, 465, 469, 617, 

964. 
Thornton v. Appleton, 1393. 

r. Dean, 922. 

r. Dick, 490. 

t\ Illingworth, 230. 

V. Maynard, 1237. 

17. Rankin, 271. 

«. Wynn, 202, 1091, 1147, 1149, 
1153. 
Thorold Mfg. Co. r. Imperial Bank, 

387. 
Thorp t?. Craig, 879. 
Thrall i?. Horton, 797. 

v, Newell, J33a, 734. 
Thrash v. Ely, 1785. 
Thrasher r. Dyer, 26. 

r. Everhart, 32, 885. 
Threadgill v. Commissioners, 673, 812, 

1191. 
Throop V, Grain Cleaner Co., 16a. 
Thrupp V. Fielder, 230. 
Thuemmler v. Barth, 1612a. 
Thurman r. Van Brunt, 1205, 1648. 
Thurston f. Munn, 303. 

r. Wolfborough Bank, 1685. 
Ticknor r. Roberts, 909, 948, 1149. 
Ticonic Bank r. Bagley, 1191, 1192a. 

1?. Smiley, 670. 

t?. Stackpole, 9, 928, 963. 
Tidioute Sav. Bank r. Libbey, 1773. 
Tidmarsh i?. Grover, 1378. 
Tiernan t?. Commercial Bank, 341, 343. 

V, Jackson, 19, 451. 
Tieman's Exrs. i?. Woodruff, 1313. 
Tiffany v. Willis, 1789. 
Tilden v. Barnard, 404, 819. 

V. Stilson, 834, 835. 
Tiller v. Spradley, 298. 
Tillinghast r. Wheaton, 24. 
Tillon V, Clinton, etc., Mut. Ins. Co., 

1420. 
Timberlake v. Thayer, 324, 1095, 1312. 
Timmins r. Gibbons, 740, 1260, 1679a. 
Timms t\ Delisle, 1005a, 1015. 



Befereneea are to 
paragrapha marked {. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxli 



Tindal r. Brown, 612, 972, 985, 987, 

990, 1037, 1175, 1590. 
Tinker v. Hurst, 194. 

tJ. McCauley, 716, 1776, 1779. 
Tinsley r. Hoskins, 62, 62a. 
Tisdale v. Maxwell, 71, 103. 
Titcombe r. McAllister, 1260, 1261. 
Titcomb v. Thomas, 748. 
Tittle r. Thomas, 100. 
Titus r. Great Western Turnpike Co., 
1611. 

r. Mechanics' Bank, 341. 
Tobey r. Barber, 1264, 1267, 1272, 
1276, 1278. 

V, Berly, 1048. 

r. Chipman, 859. 

V. Lennig, 979a. 
Toby P. Railroad Co., 1192. 
Todd r. Ames, 24^ 

r. Bailly, 248. 

r. Bank of Kentucky, 881, 896, 
1381, 1382. 

r. Edwards, 1015. 

P. Lee, 248, 250. 

r. Keal's Admr., 9, 908, 909, 911, 
934, 1050. 

r. Shelbume, 758. 

r. Wick, 805. 
Toledo Iron Sl Agr. Works r. Heisser, 

301, 306. 
Tolle r. Boeckler, 1343. 
Tolman r. Harahan, 362, 488. 

r. Janson, 43, 812. 
Tombeckbee Bank r. Dumell, 370. 

V, Stratton, 1311. 
Tooibler r. Reitz, 710. 
Tomblin r. Higgins, 1251. 
Tomlin r. Thornton, 1590. 
Tompkins r. Ashby, 36, 40. 

r. Buimel], 831c. 

r. Compton, 20Q. 

r. Mitchell. 1281. 

r. Woodward, 365, 366. 
Toms V. Powell, 1235. 
Tonee v. Parkersburg R. Co., 390. 
Took p. Tuck, 194. 
Tooke f. Bonds, 1251. 

r. Newman, 832a. 
Toomer p. Rutland, 1395, 1411. 
Tootle, Ex parte, 41. 
Toplitz V. Bauer, 833. 
Torbctt p. Worthy, 207. 
Torinus r. Buckham, 203. 
Torp p. Gulseth, 1343. 
Torrey r. Baxter, 1260. 

P. Dustin Monument Assn., 394. 

p. Fobs, 1085, 1485. 

r. Hadley, 1264. 
Tonchard p. Touchard, 1527a. 
Tonmer r. Dickinson, 1311. 
Tower p. Appleton, 1685, 1694. 

r. Durell, 1140. 



Tower p. Richardson, 81. 

Towers p. Moor, 1298. 

Town p. Culver, 1489. 

Town of Brewton p. Spire, 1537. 

Town of Cicero p. Clifford, 15095. 

Town of Coloma p. Eaves, 1520, ^537, 

1542. 
Town of Danville p. Pace, 1565. 

p. Sutherlin, 752, 1533, 1534. 
Town of Darlington p. Atlanta Tr. Co., 

155a, 1550. 
Town of Eagle p. Kohn, 197, 807, 1495, 

1551. 
Town of East Lincoln p. Davenport, 

1537, 1550. 

Town of Genoa p. Woodruff, 1513, 1537, 

1552. 
Town of Lansing p. Lytic, 1506. 
Town ot Middleport p. ^tna Life In?. 

Co., 1538. 
Town of Ontario p. Hill, 1603. 
Town of Queensbury p. Culver, 1521, 

1523, 1556. 
Town of Solon p. Williamsburg Sav. 

Bank, 1495. 
Town of South Ottawa p. Perkins, 

1520, 1538. 
Town of Venice p. Murdock, 1537. 
Town of Weganwega p. Ayling, 1544. 
Towne p. Rice, 51, 403, 

p. Wason, 1192. 
Towner p. MbClelland, 782, 834. 
Townsend p. Bank of Racine, 737, 751, 
1676a. 

p. Colorado Fuel A Iron Co., 1489. 

p. Derby, 108. 

p. Dry Goods Co., 638, 644, 979a. 

p. Hager, 802. 

p. Lorain Bank, 929, 983, 984, 
985. 

p. Star Wagon Co., 1378. 
Township of Burlington r. Beasley, 

1522. 
Township of East Oakland p. Skinner, 

1538, 1544a. 

Township of Elmwood p. Many, 1525. 
Township of Pine Grove p. Talcott, 10, 

423, 1521, 1523. 1524. 
Townsley p. Sumrall, 184, 449, 454, 

465, 569, 570, 909, 945, 959. 
Trabue p. Short, 899. 
Tracy P. Alvord, 25. 
Trader p. Chichester, 62. 
Traders* Bank p. AIsop, 197. 
Tradesmen's Nat. Bank p. Curtis, 81a. 
Traders' Nat. Bank p. Parker, 1215. 
Traer p. Mullaly, 1731. 
Trafford p. Hall, 725. 
Train P. Jones, 17856. 
Tramwell p. Hudmon, 1450. 
Transportation Co. p. Downer, 1741. 
Trapp p. Spearman, 1378. 



cxlii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



■ References are to 
paragraphs marked {. 



Trask v, Martin, 617. 
Trauck v. Hill, 76ete. 
Travellers* Ins. Co. r. Denver, 433. 

r. Mayor, 14915. 
Traver i\ Evanaville Furniture Co., 

1300a. 
Treacy r. Chinn, 200. 
Treadway v. Sanger, 10a. ■ 
Tread well v. Commissioners, 1560, 

1551. 
Treanor v. Yingling, 1311. 
Trebilock v, Wilson, 1245, 1247. 
Trecothiek t?. Edwin, 1383. 
Tredick v. Wendell, 654. 
Tredway t'. Antisdel, 709. 
Trego r. Lowery, 174. 
Trent Tile Co. r. Ft. Dearborn Nat. 

Bank, 490. 
Trentman v. Fletcher, 1250. 
Treuttel t\ Barandon, 282, 283, 698, 

699. 
Trickey v. Lame, 203. 
Trieber v. Commercial Bank, 69, 70. 
Trier v, Bridgman, 162. 
Trigg r. Taylor, 1408. 
Trimbey v, Vignier, 867, 883, 906. 
Trimble v. Thorn, 1146, 1152, 1304, 

1305, 1339. 
Triplett v, Foster, 573, 812, 815. 

1?. Hunt, 987. 

V, Randolph, 1312. 
Tripp V, Curtinus, 1702a, 1703, 1707. 

r. Swanzey Man. Co., 387. 
Tritt r. Coldwell, 254. 
Trombly v. Trombly, 1344. 
Trost V, Hinman, 812. 
Troy r. Topping, 263. 
Troy City Bank v. Lauman, 515, 1380. 
Trubee v. Alden, 800a. 
True r. Bullard, 666, 669a, 717, 719. 

t\ Collins, 1029. 

V. Fuller, IV 76. 

t\ Thomas, 1586, 1595, 1629. 
Trueman v, Fenton, 182. 

V. Loder, 740a. 
Trull V. Meneton, 125. 
TruUinger v. Kofold, 1252. 
Truman v. Bishop, 816. 
Trumpbour t?. Trumpbour, 327. 
Trunday v. Farrar, 317. 
Truss V. Miller, 1236a, 1340, 1343. 
Trust Co. V. Nat. Bank, 1782. 
Trustees of I. I. Fund v. Lewis, 1233, 

1490, 1509. 
Trustees of Schools v. McCaughy, 1565. 

V. McCormick, 316, 322. 

r. Parks, 1188. 
Tryon r. Oxley, 262, 1612. 
Tucker r. Bradley, 67. 

t?. City of Virginia, 1527. 

r. Coffin, 205. 



Tucker t\ FairWnks, 409. 

i\ McCauley, 1779. 

r. Nat. Bank of Athens, 1230. 

f. Randall, 1213. 

r. Roach,- 177, 196&. 

V, Rouk, 196. 
Tuckerman p. French, 17856. 

r. Hartw€ill, 154. 

i\ Newhall, 1294. 
Tudor.4:. 0odloe, 1317. 
Tulley r. Citizens' State Bank, 393. 
Tunno v, Lague, 1066. 
Tuohy V. Woods, 1316, 1318. 
Turber v. Caverly, 1099. 
Turk V. Richmond, 196. 
TurnbuU t?. Block, 1327. 

t?. Bowyer, 1113. 

r. Freret, 268.^ 

V. Hill, 1152. 

t\ Maddox, 1147. 

r. Strohecker, 1425. 

V. Thomas, 74. 
Turner v. Bank of Fox Lake, 1625. 

V. Billagram, 1416. 

t*. Browden, 176, 534. 

V. Brown, 176, 181. 

t?. First Nat.^Bank, 286a. 

V, Hoole, 194. 

V. Hoyle, 724a. 

r. Iron Mining Co., 609. 

V. Keller, 672, 676. 

r. Leach, 988, 1045, 1127, 1224. 

V. Mead, 655. 

V, Pearson, 205. 

V, P. A S. R. Co., 50a. 

V. Rogers, 185, 936, 962. 

V, Ross, 1215&. 

i\ Samson, 9956, 1085. 

V, Stones, 1679a. 

i\ Trustees, 1730a, 1734a. 

t?. Turner, 1228. 
Turpin v, Thompson, 24. 
Turrentine f. Grigsly, 1228. 
Tuskaloosa Oil Co. v. Perry, 393, 1228. 
Tutt V. Hobbs, 1564. 

i\ Thornton, 1342, 1373a, 1398. 
Tuttle V. Bartholomew, 1782. 

t?. Becker, 1197. 

V. Fowler, 257. 

V, Mayo, 1687. 

V, Standish, 1476, 1481. 

V, Walton, 1708<i. 

r. Wilson, 725. 
Twenty-sixth Ward Bank r. Steams, 

854. 
Twopenny r. Young, 548, 1291, 1296, 

1328. 
Tye V, Gwynne, 201. 
Tyler t?. Anderson, 177. 

V. Gould, 1644. 

t?. Walker, 62, 62a. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF GASES. 



cxliii 



lyier f. Young, 611. 

Tyree r. Lyon, 365, 366. 

TjBOn c. Oliver, 1007, 1023, 1030. 

r. School Directors, 1556. 

r. State Bank, 324, 320, 341. 

V. Western Nat. Bank, 336, 340b, 
693. 

r. Woodruff, 1966. 

U. 

Ubfidell r. Cunningham, 43. 
Uhl r. Harvey, 3696. 
Ulrich V. McCormick, 375. 
Ulster County Bank v, McFarland, 
561, 1766, 1799. 

V, Synatt, 1734d. 
Underbill r. Phillips, 108. 
Underwood v. Am. Mtg. Co., 922. 

r. Simons, 81. 
Uoger r. Boas, 674. 
Union Bank r. Beime, 275. 

F. Coster, 1790, 1797. 

c. Crine, 1338. 

v. Kllicott, 1689. 

T. Ezell, 611. 

r. Fowlkes, 953, 959. 

V. Gilbert, 205, 751. 

V, Grimshaw, 1162. 

V. Hyde, 926, 968, 1095. 

p. Laird, 1708c. 

r. Magruder, 1100. 

f. Rif^eley, 389. 

r. Smiser, 1260. 

r. Stone, 1056. 

r. Warren, 1478, 1695. 

V. Willis, 455, 594, 713, 713o, 
999a, 1757. 
Union Bethel v. Sheriff, 85. 
Union Central Life Ins. Co. v, Huyck, 
177. 

V. Pollock, 865, 887, 891. 
Union Ins. Co. v, Greenleaf, 41. 
Union Nat. Bank r. Barber, 815, 825, 
1200, 1470. 

9. Citizens' Nat Bank, 334, 336, 
340«, 1621. 

t. Cooley, 1311. 

f. Cross, 1319. 

V. First Nat Bank, 7a9a. 

V. Fraser, 197, 205. 

r. Hines, 7^2. 

V, McKey, 326a. 

p. Marr, Admr., 1061. 

p. New Orleans, 1310. 

p. Ocean County Bank, 1637. 

p. Roberts, 832a, 1373a. 

P. Rowan, 1731. 

p. SloGomb, 743. 

P. Underbill, 366. 
P. Wheeler, 674. 



Union Nat Bank of Troy v, Williams 

Milling Co., 950, 952, 955. 
Union Pacific R. Co. p. Johnson, 1731, 

17326. 
Union R. Co. v, Yeager, 1733. 
Union Say. Assn. t\ Grain Ele\7itor 

Co., 1714. 
Union Square Bank r. HcUerson, 791, 

793a, 802. 
Union Stock Yards Co. v. Westcott, 

17336. 
Union Trust Co. v. Chicago R. Co., 50a, 

r. Monticello, etc., R. Co., 1491a. 

r. Rigdon, 187. 
Union A Planters' Bank of Memphis 

r. Jefferson, 186. 
United States v. Bank of Georgia, 
1672, 1688. 

V. Bank of Metropolis, 174, 436, 
437, 512, 516, 547. 

V, B. & O. R. Co., 1519a. 

V, Barker, 217, 438, 454, 478, 932, 
1039, 1041. 

V, Boyce, 1189a. 

V. Central Nat Bank, 436. 

«. ainton Nat Bank, 1371. 

V. County of Clark, 149 lo. 

V. Cushman, 1296. 

17. Dodge Co., 1522. 

V. Grossmeyer, 222, 1060. 

V, Hodge, 1328. 

V. Huckabee, 857. 

V, January, 1250. 

V, Kirkpatrick, 1250, 1252. 

V, Lapine, 222. 

9. Leffler, 1217. 

V, Linn, 1391. 

V, Morrison, 1525. 

V. Nat Park Bank, 1364, 1369. 

V. Babbitt, 1527. 

V. Sill, 1696. 

V, Simpson, 1311, 1339. 

17. Spalding, 1373a. 

V. White, 99, 104, 106, 130. 
United States Bank p. Binney, 357, 
363. 

p. Cameal, 601. 

V. Russell, 1374. 

17. Southard, 1149, 1156. 
United States Bung Mfg. Co. p. Arm- 
strong, 1424. 
United States Express Co. p. Haines, 

125. 
United States Mortgage Co. v. Cross, 

834. 
United States Nat. Bank r. Burton, 
1005a, 1188. 

V, Ewing, 339, 697, 791, 792. 

p. First Nat Bank, 389, 393, 494. 

p. Greer, 717, 719. 

p. Nat. Bank, 1663. 



cxliv 



TABLE OF GASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked f. 



United States Nat. Bank v. Park Nat. 

Bank, 1359, 1400, 1654a. 
United States Tr. Co. t?. Mayor, 1223. 

V. McClellan, 791. 

V, Village of Mineral Ridge, 1538. 
United States Wind Engine Co. v. 

Simonton, 710. 
University Press v, Williams, 1115, 

1116, 1117. 
Updegraft r. Edwards, 834. 
Upham 1?. Prince, 700, 1782, 1783. 
Urton V, Hunter, 875. 
Usher v, Dauncey, 142, 372. 

V, Gaither, 1472. 
Uther V. Rich, 770, 774. 
Utica Bank v. Ganson,/ 1100. 

V, Smalley, 17086. 
Utica Ins. Co. t?. Kip, 204. 

V. 

Vacarro v, Toof, 350a. 
Vail 17. Van Doren, 85, 925. 
Valentine i?. Foster, 182. 

V. Holloman, 686. 

V, Packer, 283. 
Valette v. Mason, 758, 832a. 
Valk V. Gaillard, 998. 

V, Simmons, 1081, 1596. 
Vallett V, Parker, 197, 369, 807, 808, 

812. 
Valpy r. Oakeley, 1280. 
Van Aernam t*. Grander, 812. 
Van Alen v. American Nat. Bank, 

326c, 336. 
Van Amee v. Bank of Troy, 337, 339, 

340. 
Van Auken v. Hornbeck, 1472, 1482. 
Vanbibben r. Bank of Louisiana, 1637. 
Van Brunt i?. Singley, 849. 

1?. Vaughn, 1005a. 
Vance v, Collins, 1005, 1387. 

t*. Lowther, 1658. 

V, Wells, 240. 
Tancleave t\ Beach, 1245, 1423. 
Vancleef v, Therasson, 874. 
Vandenburg v. Hall, 360. 
Vanderpool v. Brake, 859. 
Vanderveer v. Wright, 1784. 
Vandesant v. Chapman, 1200. 
Vandeveer v, Ogden, 83. 
Vandewall r. Tyrrell, 580, 941, 1264, 

1258. 
Van Doren r. Tjader, 713c. 
Van Duzer v. Howe, 147, 540, 1405. 
Van Dyke v. Wildor k Co., 1288. 
Van Eman v, Stanchfield, 664a, 741. 
Van Epps v, Dillaye, 1272, 1299. 
Van Etten t?. Newton, 1738, 1740a. 
Van Gorder v. Bank, 183. 
Van Hoesen r. Van Alstyne, 996. 
Van Hostrup v, Madison City, 1540. 



Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 370, 374. 

r. Corkins, 834. 
Van Liszman t;. Marx, 7135. 
Van Ness r. Forrest, 1189. 
Van Patton v. Beals, 210. 

V. Marks, 212. 
Van Raugh r. Van Arsdale, 875. 
Van Reimsdyck 17. Kane, 568. 
Van Rensselaer's Exrs. r. Roberts, 

1253. 
Van Riper t?. Baldwin, 1197. 
Vansandt v, Hobbs, 1222, 1223. 
Van Schaack v. Stafford, 751. 
Van Schaick r. Edwards, 867, 923. 
Van Steenburgh v. Hoffman, 240. 
Van Vechten v. Pruyn, 1016, 1025, 
1033. 

r. Smith, 80. 
Van Voorhis t?. Brown, 365, 7956. 
Van Wagenen v, Genesee Falls Sav. 

Assn., 278. 
Van Zandt r. Hopkins, 41, 45, 151, 

154. 
Van Wart v. WooUey, 329, 341, 476, 

564, 995, 1176, 1262, 1788. 
Van Wickle v. Downing, 1149. 
Van Windisch v. Klaus, 769a. 
Vanstrum r. Liljengren, 174, 497, 515. 
Vanzant t?. Arnold, 877. 
Varin v, Hobson, 774. 
Varner v, Nobleborough, 161, 430, 

1260. 
Vamum v, Milford, 802. 
Vashon v, Greenhow, 448. 
Vass V. Riddick, 177. 
Vastine v. Wilding, 1701, 1702. 
Vater r. Lewis, 93, 101, 415. 
Vathir v, Zane, 166, 177, 815, 816. 
Vatterlien v. Howell, 830, 832. 
Vaughan v. Fowler, 1391. 
Vaughn t*. Ferrall, 859. 

V, Fuller, 1165. 

V. Wabash Ry. Co., 1741. 
Veal r. Veal, 24. 
Veazie r. Carr, 1305, 1317. 
Veazie Bank t*. Paulk, 751. 

t?. Winn, 1209, 1210, 1590. 
Veeder t\ Town of Lima, 1560, 1662, 

1553, 1555. 
Velie V. Titus, 183. 
Veneable v. Lippold, 248, 769. 
Verbeck i?. Scott, 803. 
Verder r. Verder, 666. 
Vere r. Lewis, 136, 137. 
Vermilye v, Adams Express Co., 353. 
Vermont Township Bank p. Railroad 

Co., 1775. 
Vernon v. Manhattan Co., 353, 369o. 
Vertue r. Jewell, 1749. 
Vestal V. Knight, 1312, 1317&, 1338. 
Vette V. La Barge, 787. 
Vickers v, Buttshall, 154. 



References are to 
paraffraphs marked {. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlv 



Vickery r. State Sav. AB8n., 336, 

698d. 
Victor V. Baner, 7796. 
Vidal r. Thompson, 908, 915. 
Viele V. Hoag, 1322. 
Viets r. Nat. Bank, 1336. 
Vila r. Weston, 1199. 
Vilas r. Jones, 1317. 
Viies 17. Moulton, 1471. 
Village of Ft. Edward v. Fish, 377, 

1533. 
Vincent r. Horlock, 688a, 1195. 
Vinton p. King, 787, 858. 

r. Peck, 69^, 758a. 
Violet V. Rose, 164, 185. 
Vio.ett r. Patton. 189, 694, 843, 1765. 
Vipond r. Townsend, 62. 
Virginia Coupon Cases, 448. 
Virginia v. Ches. & Ohio Canal Co., 

1500, 1513, 1514. 
Viiginia Sav. Bank r. Gibson, 451. 
Virginia ft Tenn. R. Co. v. Clay, 1490, 

1494, 1500, 1511, 1512. 
Vischer r. Webster, 1406. 
Vogle r. Ripper, 1373a, 1410. 
Volte r. Hams, 1786, 1788. 

p. Nat. Bank, 1774. 
Von Hoffman v. United States, 724a. 
Vore r. Hurst, 716. 
Voreis r. Harshbarger, 210, 229. 

t'. NuBsbaum, 807. 
Vofiberg r. Brown, 248. 
Vosburgh p. Diefendorf, 775, 804, 815. 
Voss r. Grerman- American Bank, 3266. 

f. Robinson, 1750. 
Vreeland p. Blunt, 23. 

r. Hyde, 607, 609. 
Vulliamy p. Noble, 369a. 

W. 

Wabash Ry. Co. r. Brown, 1741. 
Wachusett Nat. Bank r. Fairbrother, 

1524. 
Wackerbath, Ex parte, 521, 530, 1255. 
Waddill r. Alabama R. Co., 384. 
Waddle r. Owen, 80. 
Wade p Chicago, etc., R. Co., 758f, 
lolltt. 

r. Creighton, 709, 714. 

r. New Orleans Canal, etc., Co., 
1484, 1694. 

r. Staunton, 1328. 

r. Town of La Moille, 1524. 

r. Travis Co., 1522, 1526. 

r. Wade, 701, 1482. 
Wadlington r. Covert, 50. 
Wadsworth v. Allen, 1788. 

r. Dunnam, 204. 

r. Sherman, 213. 

p. Supervisors, 1524. 
Wager r. Brooks, 1142. 

Vol. I — X 



Wagman v, Hoae, 1322. 
Wagner r. Diedrich, 146, 790. 

1^. Kenner, 624, 625. 

V. Ladd, 1221. 

p. Simmons, 358a, 831. 
Wain P. Bailey, 1475. 

i?. Walters, 1764. 
Wainwright p. Webster, 737, 1676. 
Wait p. Pomeroy, 149, 160, 1397, 1407. 
Waite, Matter of, 1228. 
Waithman p. Elzee, 39. 
Wake P. Tinkler, 1424. 
Wakefield r. Greenhood, 676. 
Walbridge v. Harron, 182. 
Walden p. Sherboum, 370. 
Waldo Bank p. Lambert, 368. 
Waldorf p. Simpson, 1373a. 
Waldron P. Young, 142. 
Wrfldrop p. Dunlop, 575. 
Wales r. Webb, 207. 
Walker p. Atwood, 509. 

1^. Bank of Augusta, 1015. 

p. Bank of Missouri, 979, 1015. 

p. Bank of New York, 307, 414» 
511, 1341, 1381. 

p. Christian, 443a, 445. 

p. Clay, 80. 

V. Dement, 834. 

p. Ebert, 849. 

p. Eyth, 1428. 

V, Fearhake, 1432. 

r. Forbes, 1785, 17856. 

r. Geisse, 85. 

V, Hamilton, 1449. 

17. Kee, 368, 748, 775. 

p. Kimble, 1186a. 

p. Laverty, 1151. 

17. McDonald, 696. 

17. Munro, 16a. 

17. Patterson, 262. 

17. Roberts, 47. 

p. Rogers, 1147, 1149. 

17. State Trust Co., 294. 

p. Stetson, 454, 1026, 1058. 

r. Tunstall, 1027. 

17. Turner, 929, 960, 961, 1056. 

p. Waite, 354. 

17. Walker, 1133, 1626. 

p. Warfield, 112. 

V. Woollen, 44, 61, 62a. 
Wall P. Bry, 1091, 109«, 1095a, 1102. 

p. County of Monroe, 420, 427, 
428. 

17. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank, 
1655, 1657. 
Walls p. Baird, 1295. 
Wairs Case, 1346. 

Wallace p. Agry, 454, 465, 466, 470, 
473, 943. 

r. Branch Bank, 283, 763. 

p. Goold, 713c. 

p. Hardacre, 196. 



cxlvi 



TABLE OF GASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked S. 



Wallace v, Harmstad, 1410. 

r. Jewell, 1387 

V. Kelsall, 1428. 

V, Lincoln Say. Bank, 1630a. 

r. Loomis, 1499c. 

17. Mayor of San Jose, 1550, 1551. 

V. McConnell, 334, 520, 643, 645, 
1303. 

V, Richards, 1316, 1318. 

V, Tellfair, 330. 

r. Tice, 1410, 1411. 
Wallace, Admr. v. Lipps, Admr., 769. 
Waller v. Tate, 747. 
Walley r. Deseret, 1312. 

r. Montgomery, 1736, 1745. 
Wallis V. Littell, 721. 
Wallridge v. Arnold, 196. 
Walmsley v. Acton, 951. 

V. Child, 1466, 1471. 

r. Cooper, 1291. 

r. Rivers, 962. 
Wain f. Bank, 1708d. 
Walnut V. Wade, 1506a, 1509a, 1613, 

1514, 1537. 
Walpole V, Ellison, 1414. 

V. Pulteney, 544. 
Walrad v, Petrie, 103, 163. 
Walrath v. Thompson, 1756. 
Walsh r. Batchley, 463. 

r. Cooper, 1260. 

V. Dart, 472, t)17. 

V, Hunt, 282, 284, 1373a, 1384. 

V, Lennon, 1260. 
Walsh's Appeal, 24. 
Walter v. Cubley, 1399. 

V. Haynes, 1029. 

t\ Kirk 1209. 
Walters v. Brown,* 1008, 1009, 1116. 

V. Munroe, 1140. 

V. Short, 1418. 

r. Western & A. R. Co., 17336. 
Walton V. Bemiss, 1260. 

P. Hastings, 1376. 

V. Mascall, 827. 

r. Shelly, 1217. 

V. Williams, 128. . 
Walton Plough Co. v, Campbell, 1395, 

1410a. 
Walton & Whann Co. v, Davis, 1251. 
Walwyn v. St. Quintin, 1076, 1077, 

1203, 1237, 1327. 
Walz t?. Alback, 710, 713a. 
Wamesit Bank v. Buttrick, 995. 
Wamsley v. Lindenberger, 225, 230. 
Wanger v. Tupper, 926. 
Warburton i?. Ralph, 1324. 
Ward r. Allen, 497, 505, 540. 

V. Bank of Kentucl^, 291. 

V. Bourne, 1260. 

V, Churn, 63, 856. 

V. Cornett, 62a, 1458a. 

V. Doane, 196. 



Ward V. Evans, 1262, 1623, 1679a. 

r. Hackett, 389, 854. 

V. Howard, 7690, 

r. Howe, 874. 

V. Johnson, 1296. 

17. Lewes, 856. 

V. Northern Bank, 656. 

17. Perrin, 1032. 

V. Smith, 218, 324, 325, 326. 

17. Sugg, 198. 

17. Turner, 24, 26. 

17. Vass 1311. 
Warden t\ Howell, 792, 793, 794, 826, 
831c. 

V. Hughes, 107. 
Warden v. Ryan, 1375. 
Wardens of St. James Church r. Moore, 

125. 
Warder r. Arell, 9, 874. 

V. Barrows, 36a. 

V. Pattee, 317. 

r. Tucker, 1083, 1148. 
Wardlow t?. List, 1401. 
Wardrop 17. Dunlop, 322. 
Wardwell 17. Haight, 369a. 
Ware r. Smith, 63. 

V. Street, 737, 1677, 1685. 
Waring, Ex parte, 1343. 

17. Betts, 602, 603, 654, 1111. 

17. Gaskill, 843. 

17. Smith, 1373a. 
Warman 17. First Nat. Bank, 7796, 

812. 
Warner i?. Beardsley, 1305. 

17. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 867. 

17. Gruwell, 59, 741. 

17. Harrold, 262, 271. 

17. Spencer, 1396. 
Warnick t7. Crane, 584. 
Warren v. Brown, 56. 

17. Chapman, 204. 

17. Coombs, 9, 1455. 

17. Oilman, 985, 995, 1005a, 1229. 

17. Haight, 7266. 

17. Layton, 1411, 1418. 

17. Lynch, 32, 885. 

17. Martin, 366. 

17. Scott, 105. 
Warren Bank t\ Suffolk Bank, 341. 
Warrensburg Co-Op. Assn. 17. Zoll, 

1623. 
Warring 17. Hill, 1260, 1341. 
Warrington i?. Early, 149, 1385, 1397. 

17. Furbor, 1172. 
Wartman v, Yost, 1422, 1426, 1429. 
Warwick i?. Bruce, 227. 

17. Nairn, 202. 

17. Noakes, 287, 314, 1474. 

17. Rogers, 16366. 
Washburn v. Picot, 202. 
Washington County Mut. Ins. Co. v. 

Miller, 47. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked %. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlvii 



Washington Nat. Bank r. Pierce, 802. 
Washington Sav. Bank r. Ekey, 1406. 

r. Ferguson, 717. 
Washington Times Co. v. Wilder, 388. 
Wasaon v. Hodshire, 1326. 

V. Lamb, 1621. 
Waterbury c. Andrews, 193, 240. 

r. Sinclair, 713e. 
Waterloo Milling Co. v. Kuenster, 342. 
Waterman c, Vose, 1385. 
Waters r. Bank of Georgia, 1693. 

r. Brown, lll6. 
Watervliet Bank c. White, 417, 1188. 
Watkins v. Crouch, 643, 644, 1128, 
1150, 1131, 1133, 1135,1136, 
1137, 1172. 

r. Halatead, 240. 

V. Harris, 1215. 

r. Hill, 835a, 1266&. 

V. Hopkins' £xr., 1424. 

V. Maule, 260, 267, 680, 685, 744. 

V, Plummer, 293. 

V. Sproull, 1221. 

ff. Willis, 1209. 
Watley r. Deseret Nat. Bank, 1317. 
Watson V. Barr, 713a. 

r. Boston Woven Cordage Co., 
869. 

V. Cabot Bank, 824. 

V. City of Huron, 427, 1520. 

V. Evans, 103, 684. 

V. Flanagan, 174, 728, 803. 

V. Heasel, 224. 

r. Hoag, 861. 

r. Hurt, 709, 713. 

V. Kahn, 679. 

r. Loring, 930. 

V. Reynolds, 186. 

r. Tarpley, 449. 

V. Templeton, 418. 

V. Tindall, 1343. 

r. Wyman, 1235. 
Watson's £xr8. r. McLaren, 1767, 1797. 
Watt r. Riddle, 1450. 
Wattrous v. Halbrook, 96. 
WatU V. Gans & Co., 1588, 1590, 1592. 

V. Gantt, 249. 
Wangh r. Beck, 195a. 

V, Russell, 1407. 
Way p. Batchelder, 154. 

r. Butterworth, 649, 713, 715. 

r. Denham, 1316. 

r. Lamb, 725. 

r. Richardson, 813. 

9. Smith, 45a. 

c. Sperry, 182. 

V. Towle, 1523. 
Waydell v. Adams, 1729a. 

r. Luer, 1266, 1299. 
Wayland v. Mosel^, 1729. 
Wayland University v. Boorman, 81, 

812. 



Wayman r. Bend, 663a. 

t7. Jones, 1312. 

r. Torreyson, 125. 
Waynesburg College App., 24. 
Weader v. First Nat. Bank, 1425, 1437. 
Weakley v. Bell, 1021. 
Weakly v. Bell, 1024, 1116, 1266. 
Wear v. Lee, 1590. 
Weathered r. Smith, 809. 
Weatherwax v. Paine, 713a. 
Weaver r. Barden, 789a. 

1^. Borden, 832. 

V. Bromley, 1182. 

V. Carnall, 277. 

17. Cosby, 164. 

r. Nixon, 1259. 
Webb V. Corbin, 852. 

V. Fairmauer, 617, 1208. 

V. Feather's Estate, 248. 

V. Mears, 454. 
Webb City Lumber Co. v. Mining Co., 

832. 
Webber v, Williams College, 294. 
Weber p. Orten, 573, 741. 
Webster r. Calden, 728. 

V. Cobb, 713c, 1777. 

V. De TasUt, 330. 

V Ijcc 728 

r. Mitchell, 1085, 1534. 

V. Switzer, 271. 

V, Van Steenburgh, 83 lo. 

r. Vickers, 1217. 

V. Wray, 303. 
Weed V, Bond, 806. 

V. Carpenter, 689. 
Weeks v. Esler, 32. 
Weems v, Shaughnessy, 183a, 726a, 

8310. 
WeggersloflTe v. Kerne, 516. 
Wegner v. Biering, 205. 
Weidemeyer v. Landon, 1342. 
Weidman t\ Symes, 1405. 
VA'eil V. Golden, 199. 
Weill V, Trosclair, 790. 
Weinhauer r. Morrison, 504. 
Weinstein v. Nat. Bank, 1370. 
Weinstock r. Bellwood, 22, 23, 1637. 
Weir V, Walmsley, 1376. 
Weis V, Morris Bros., 68a. 
Weismer v. Village of Douglas, 1522, 

1547. 
Weisser v. Dennison, 288a, 1370. 
Weith t?. City of Wilmington, 1500. 
Weitz V. Wolf, 688a. 
Welborn v. Norwood, 196, 196a. 
Welby V. Drake, 1289a. 
Welch v. Allington, 1260, 1266. 

t?. B. C. Taylor Mfg. Co., 1074. 

r. Dameron, 63. 

V. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co., 
1509&, 1513. 

r. Goodwin, 1369, 1372. 



cxlviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked §. 



Welch V. Lindo, 576, 700, 1198, 1227. 

V. Mayer, 533. 

V, Sage, 775. 
Weld V. Gorham, 658. 
Weldon 17. Toleman, 1230, 1230a, 1233. 
Well V. Wandly, 322. 
Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 391. 
Wellington v. Jackson, 1352a. 
Wellman v. Miner, 1261. 
Wells V. Brigham, 104, 518, 1579. 

V. Davis, 17856. 

t?. Evans, 368. 

V. Giles, 1209. 

V. Hopkins, 203. 

V. Jackson, 710, 713e, 717. 

V, Masterman, 362, 488. 

V. Moore, 255, 1184. 

V. Morrison, 1289. 

t?. Schoonover, 1192, 1200. 

V. Steam Nav. Co., 1740a. 

V. Supervisors, 422, 1529, 1530, 
1538. 

V. Sutton, 795a. 

V. Tucker, 24. 

V, Wade, 1482. 

V. Whitehead, 9, 114, 117, 943. 
Welsh V. Barrett, 967, 1057. 

V, German-American Bank, 1370. 
Welton v. Adams, 1478, 1481, 1694, 

1703. 
Wemple r. Dangerfield, 1039, 1041. 

V. Havenstein, 23a. 
Wendt V. Ross, 1252. 
Wenraan v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 1215. 
Wentworth v. Woods Machine Co., 

1623. 
Wenzell v. Shultz, 193, 
Were v, Taylor, 137. 
Werner t\ Hatton, 1428. 
Wessell t\ Glenn, 144, 1401. 
Wesson r. Saline Co., 1537. 

V. Town of Vernon, 1537, 1542. 
West t\ Brown, 637, 1041. 

r. First Nat. Bank, 399a. 

V. Forman, 50. 

V, Miller, 858. 

V, Penny, 230, 231. 
West Boston Sav. Inst. v. Thompson, 
1241. 

V. Brown, 637, 1041. 
West Branch Bank v. Fulmer, 323, 327, 

1088. 
Westcott V. Patton, 571. 

V. Stevens, 703a. 
West London Com. Bank. t\ Kitson, 

307, 412. 
West Plains, etc., Co. v. Sage, 1537. 
West St. Louis, etc.. Bank v. Shawnee, 

etc., Bank, 392. 
West St. Louis Sav. Bank v. Shawnee 

County Bank, 812. 



Westerlo v. De Witt, 24a. 
Western Bank r. Mills, 177. 
Western Boatman's Benev. Assn. r. 

Wolff, 710, 713. 
Western Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Maverick, 

1623. 
Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 81. 

V. Sadilik, 328a, 1039. 
Western Wheeled Scraper Co. r. Lock- 

lin, 94. 
Westervelt, Recr. v. Baker, 240. 
Westfall V. Braley, 737, 1676a. 
Westgate v. Healy, 1181a. 
Westinghouse v, Ger. Nat. Bank, 280, 

795a, 827, l70Sg. 
Westman v. Krumweide, 68. 
Westminster Bank v. Wheaton, 1573, 

1574. 
Westmoreland v. Foster, 271. 
Weston V. Barker, 747. 

V. Bear River, 1708e. 

V. Chamberlain, 703. 

V. City of Charleston, 125. 

V. Hight, 24, 1473. 
Westphal v. Ludlow, 127a. 

V. Nevills, 183. 
Westport Coal Co. v. McPhail, 1741. 
Wetherall v. Claggett, 967, 969. 

V. Ela, 1198. 
Wetherell v. Joy, 1251. 
Wetheron r. Lord, 180. 
Wethey v, Andrews, 608. 
Wetumpka, etc., R. Co. v. Bingham, 

425. 
Wetzstein v. Joy, 1221. 
Weyerhauser v. Dun, 142, 694. 
W^halen v. Milholland, 24a, 246. 
Whaley v, Houston, 964, 1596. 

V, Neill, 796, 815A. 
Wharton v. Morris, 56. 

V. Walker, 16366. 
Whatley t\ Tricker, 543. 
Wheat V. Arnold, 1418. 

V. Kendall, 1317, 1338. 
Wheatland t?. Pryor, 340c. 
Wheatley v. Kutz, 1630. 

t7. Strobe, 15, 16a, 19, 125, 1644. 
Wheaton v. Wilmarth, 983. 
Wheeler r. Field, 1058, 1116, 1117, 
1145. 

V. Gould, 1618a. 

V. Guild, 1227, 1228, 1233, 1461. 

t\ Johnson, 1191, 1200. 

V, McBlair, 787. 

V. Newbold, 833. 

V. Simmons, 182. 

V, Slocum, 827. 

V. State, 991. 

t\ Stone, 18, 497a. 

V, Warner, 606, 1215. 

V. Webster, 97, 486, 497, 606. 

r. Wheeler, 266, 685, 741. 



References are to 
paragraphg marked {. 



TABLS OF CASES. 



cxlix 



Wlieeless r. WilliamB, 1209. 
Wheelock v. Berkeley, 205, 1221. 

r. Freeman, 79, 1347, 1397, 1410, 
1412. 
Whelpdale's Case, 858. 
Whetstone r. CoUey, 1247, 
Whilder r. Merchants, etc., Bank, 496. 

r. M. & P. Nat. Bank, 551. 
Whinston r. Stodder, 868. 
Whipple r. Fowler, 834. 

r. Stevens, 1215o. 
Whistler r. Foster, 706, 745, 1578. 
Whitaker r. Bank of England, 603. 

p. Brown, 359. 

r. Edmunds, 165, 814. 

r. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 1514. 

r. Morrison, 1165, 1168. 

V. Pope, 1250. 

V. Whitaker, 187a, 256, 12156. 
Whitcomb v. Mills, 854. 

r. Whiting, 374. 

V, Williams, 1260. 
White r. Banister's Ezrs., 1433. 

V. Canfield, 886. 

r. Casanove, 128 lo. 

V. Case, 17690. 

V, Continental Nat. Bank, 349a, 
533, 540, 853, 1359, 1361, 
1363, 1364, 1372, 1603. 

9. Curd, 1458a. 

V. Cushing, 50, 149, 150. 

r. £iseman, 1626. 

p. Dougherty, 1281. 

r. Ford, 1431. 

r. Goldsberg, 248, 788. 

r. Hart, 173. 

V, Haas, 1418. 

V. Heylman, 196, 743. 

p. Hopkins, 1307, 1335a. 

V. Howard, 1267. 

V. Howland, 1780. 

V, Kebling, 1233. 

p. Kehloe, 1227. 

p. Ledwick, 108. 

p. ^ladison, 307. 

p. McNett, 248. 

p. Nat. Bank, 698, 698a, 698o. 

p. Palmer, 1231. 

p. Richmond, 56. 

p. Smith, 41. 

p. Springfield Bank, 827, 832a. 

p. Stoddard, 578, 994, 1125, 1126, 
1177. 

p. Story, 248. 

p. Tnompson, 262. 

p. Trumbull, 1251. 

p. Tudor, 370a, 373. 

p. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 148, 
1496a, 1499, 1500. 

p. Wardwell, 182. 

p. Weaver. 713c, 728. 

P. Weir, 1739. 



Whiteford p. Burckmeyer, 1003, 1191, 

1200. 
Whitehead v. Walker, 724a, 725, 1436. 
Whitehouse v. Hansen, 712, 717. 
Whitelocke p. Musgrove, 1218. 
Whitely P. Allen, 1146. 

p. Foy, 336. 
Whiteman p. Childress, 56. 

p. Sheckle, 125. 
Whiteside p. Northern Bank, 1377. 

p. United SUtes, 440. 
WThite Water Valley Canal Co. p. Val- 

lette, 382. 
Whitfield P. Savage, 1077. 
Whiting p. City Bank, 1038. 
Whitlock p. Manciet, 1373a. 

p. Underwood, 88, 599. 
Whitman p. Farmers' Bank, 983, 1045. 

p. Leonard, 370, 371, 374. 
Whitmer p. Frye, 1385, 1410, 1412. 
Whitmire p. Montgomery, 70. 
Whitmore p. Ellison, 1317. 

p. Nickerson, 94. 
Whitney p. Abbott, 1104. 

p. Bunnell, 533, 1755. 

p. Clary, 164. 

p. Dutch, 231. 

i\ Elliot Nat. Bank, 20, 61. 

p. Esson, 1625. 

p. First Nat. Bank, 286a. 

p. Going, 1329. 

r. Grost, 1755. 

p. Mcijean, 1734c. 

p. Merchants' Union Express Co., 
348. 

p. Nat. Bank, 731. 

p. Snyder, 848, 850. 

p. bpearman, 721. 
Whitney Nat. Bank v. Cannon, 784. 
Whitridge p. Rider, 1114. 
Whittaker p. Charleston Gas Co., 833, 
1192. 

p. Kuhn, 725. 
Whittenberger P. Spalding, 581. 
Whittenhall P. Korber, 1198. 
Whittier p. Eager, 187. 

p. Graffam, 1123, 1145. 

r. Hayden, 1195. 
Whittle P. Skinner, 1289a. 
Whitwell p. Crehore, 725a. 

p. Johnson, 658. 

p. Winslow, 53, 80. 
Whitworth p. Adams, 191, 750, 751, 

752, 753, 756, 757, 760, 762a, 763, 

765. 
Whyte P. Rosencrantz, 497a. 
Wiekersham v. Jarvis, 1198, 1229. 
Wickham p. Grant, 193. 

V. Wickham, 314. 
Wickhizer p. Bolin, 65, 08a. 
Wickoff P. Andhoney, 3345. 
Widgery p. Monroe, 658, 1145, 1146. 



cl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



Widoe V. Webb, 204. 
Wieman v. Anderson, 250. 
Wiener r. Peacock, 205. 
Wierbacb, v. Fir^t Nat. Bank, 210. 
Wiffen t\ Roberts, 746. 
Wiggin V. Bush, 776. 

V. Damrell, 747. 
Wiggins V. Burkham, 1370. 

V. Stevens, 802, 1612a. 
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & Alton 

R. Co., 1740. 
Wigginton v. McClure, 360, 369. 
Wiggle V, Thompson, 1209, 1212. 
Wiggleswcrth v. Steers, 214. 
Wilbur V. Jeep, 1435a. 

V, Jernegan, 1260. 

V. Lynde, 282. 

r. Selden, 1057. 

p, Williams, 1311. 
Wilburn v. Greer, 56. 
Wilcombe v. Dodge, 1209. 
Wilcox V. Aultman, 1227. 

V, Draper, 1785, 17856. 

V. Roath, 232, 998. 

V. Tenant, 722. 
Wilcox Organ Co. v, Lasley, 1245. 
Wilcoxen r. Reynolds, 87. 
Wilcoxon V. City of Bluflfton, 1624. 
Wild V, Bank of Passamaquoddy, 388, 

391, 687. 
Wilda V, Armsly, 1418. 
Wilde V. Sheridan, 896. 
Wilder r. Cowles, 740a. 

V. De Wolf, 130, 663a. 

V, M. & P. Nat. Bank, 496. 

V, Seelye, 1481. 

V. Weekley, 210. 
Wilders r. Stevens, 714a, 1202a. 
Wildes V. Nahant Bank, 1673a. 

V, Savage, 561, 661, 1786a, 1788. 
Wildman, Ew parte, 1203. 

r. Van Gelder, 800a. 
Widsmith t\ Tracy, 796. 
Wiles V, Robinson, 1260. 
Wiley t?. First Nat. Bank, 286a. 

V, Knight, 802. 
Wilkenson v. Jeffers, 726. 
Wilkes 17. Jacks, 1083. 

V. Robinson, 1685. 
Wilkes County t?. Coler, 1537. 
Wilkins v. Com. Bank, 998. 

r. Jadis, 602, 1160. 
Wilkinson v, Adams, 982. 

V, Cook, 172. 

V. Johnson, 528, 633, 549, 1267. 

f. Lutwidge, 533. 

f. Searcy, 869. 
Wil'ans t?. Ayres, 1438, 1446. 
Willard v. Nelson, 847, 848. 
Willenberger v, Spalding, 586. 
Willet V. Young, 271. 



Willets V, Hatch, 1713. 

V, Paine, 1587. 

V. Phoenix Bank, 1571, 1603. 
Willett V, Shepherd, 1418. 
Willey r. First Nat. Bank, 286a. 

V. Greenfield, 432. 
Williams v. Ayres, 129. 

t7. Bacon, 303. 

V, Baker, 76. 

V, Bank, 712. 

V, Bank of U. S., 1005, 1016, 1022, 
1117, 1119. 

V, Brashear, 1076. 

V. Brimhall, 1428. 

V. Brobst, 1105, 1110. 

V. Cheney, 808. 

V. Costello, 1221, 1623. 

V, Drexel, 538, 1365. 

17. Duanesburgh, 1567. 

t?. Everett, 19. 

17. First Nat. Bank of Syracuse, 
81a. 

17. Floyd, 112. 

17. Gait, 63. 

17. Gerber, 1236a. 

17. Germaine, 627, 629, 53 L 

17. Gilchrist, 1425. 

r. Haynes, 885. 

17. Holt, 812. 

r. Hoogewerflf, 637. 

17. Huntington, 768a. 

17. James, 1206, 1241. 

17. Jensen, 1389. 

17. Johnson, 688a. 

17. Jones, 336, 698d, 884, 1203. 

17. Keyes, 834, 1233. 

17. Mathews, 369a, 672, 998, 1048. 

17. Moore, 230. 

17. Nat. Bank of Balto., 748, 1230a, 
1266. 

V. Nicols, 186. 

17. Potter, 698. 

17. Price, 1311. 

17. Putnam, 909, 910, 928, 960. 

17. Bobbins, 303, 306. 

17. Robinson, 1165. 

17. Scott, 1318. 

17. Sims, 65. 

17. Smith, 768, 824, 831c, 832a, 
1676a, 1679a, 1696. 

17. Stoll, 860. 

17. Storm, 761. 

17. Thomas, 358. 

17. Tishomingo Sav. Inst., 672. 

17. Union R. Co., 1149. 

r. Wade, 899, 900. 

17. Walker, 196. 

17. Wallbridge. 366, 369. 

17. Waring, 1370. 

17. Williams, 67a, 1760. 

17. Winas, 490, 491. 



References are io 
paraffraphs marked $. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Cli 



Williams, Admr. v. Planters & Mechan- 
ics' Nat. Bank, 640. 
Williamsburgh Sav. Bank v. Town of 

Solon, 1421, 15096, 1513. 
Williamson v. City of Keokuk, 1538. 

V. Doby, 724a. 

r. Harrison, 225. 

r. Johnson, 361, 688, 1613. 

V. Massey, 448. 

V. New Albany & Salem R. Co., 
1509a. 

V. Smith, 86, 1244. 

r. Watts, 225. 
Willings r. Consequa, 1296. 
Willis V. Barrett, 100. 

V. Barrow, 354. 

r. Chowning, 1753. 

V. Cresey, 1478. 

V. French, 672. 

r. Green, 455, 594, 999a. 

V. Heath, 800a. 

r. Sanger Bros., 205. 

r. Smith, 24a. 
Willison r. Pattison, 217, 678a, 814. 
Willman Mercantile Co. v. Fussy, 1734. 
Willoughby r. Moulton, 74. 

V. Willoughby, 103. 
Wills c. Hurst, 1312. 

r. Wilson, 1401. 
Willsey r. Hutchins, 248. 
Wilmington Bank v. Houston, 689a. 
Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. King, 87. 
Wilaon v. Bank, 341. 

r. Bartrop, 306. 

F. Beardsley, 1799. 

r. Black, 719. 

r. Campbell, 47. 

V, Casey, 124. 

p. City of Shreveport, 1530, 1538. 

r. Clements, 550, 551, 552, 558. 

V, Codman, 700, 1431. 

F. Crosnoe, 176. 

p. Dawson, 326&. 

r. Ellsworth, 174. 

r. Forder, 370, 372a. 

V, Harris, 1419. 

V, Hayes, 1352, 1418. 

r. Holmes, 698. 

P. Jamieson, 1401. 

p. Keedey, 1429. 

r. Knox County, 10a. 

r. Lazier, 165, 198, 808, 814, 816, 
817, 880, 895. 

P. McVey, 1310. 

p. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 726a. 

r. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 1741. 

r. Mitchell, 987. 

p. Pauley, 769a, 789. 

p. Powers, 1317a. 

P. Ray, 194. 

P. Richards^ 356, 960. 



Wilson V, Second Nat. Bank, 802. 

V. Senier, 1131, 1135. 

V, Smith, 344, 1192. 

p. Stubbs, 100. 

p. Swabey, 987, 988. 

p. Tolson, 698d, 1192. 

p. Tricker, 185. 

P. Williman, 1209. 
Wilson Organ Co. v. Lasley, 1245. 
Wilson Sewing Machine Co. p. Moreno, 
62. 

p. Spears, 1200. 
Wimberly et al. v. Windham, 292. 
Winans p. Gibbs, 1759. 
Winchell p. Carey, 69. 
Winchester r. Hackley, 1431. 
Winders p. Sperry, 183, 185. 
Windham p. Doles, 207. 

p. Norton, 598, 1048, 1067, 1068, 
1068a. 
Windham County Bank p. Kendall, 

366. 
Windsor Sav. Bank p. McMahon, 10a, 

54a. 
Wines et al, p. State Bank of Ham- 
ilton, 1219. 
Wing p. Cooper, 131. 

p. Ford, 815. 

p. Gluck, 443a. 

p. Terry, 95. 
Wingato p. Blalock, 80, 1338. 

p. Mechanics' Bank, 341. 
Winker P. Magdeburg, 833. 
Winn P. City of Macon, 1523. 

p. Thomas, 194. 
Winslow p, Everett Nat. Bank, 1362. 
Winship p. Bank of U. S., 368. 

p. Merchants' Bank, 812. 
Winslow p. Norton, 1730a. 
Winstead Bank r. Webb, 1266a, 1274. 
Winston r. Yeargin, 1311. 
Winter r. Anson, 1281a. 

V. Drury, 20. 

p. Poole, 815, 1395, 1405, 1417. 
Wintermute r. Post, 513, 545. 

p. Torrent, 698(i. 
Winters p. Armstrong, 336. 
Wintersmith r. Post, 508. 
Winthrop r. Pepoon, 930. 
Wintle V. Crowther, 351, 364. 
Winton p. Saidler, 1217. 
Wintons r. Westfeldt, 800a. 
Wipperman p. Hurdy, 1251, 1262, 1269, 

1260, 1262, 1267. 
Wisconsin M. & F. Ins. Co. p. Bank, 

17346. 
Wisdom p. Becker, 262. 
Wise p. Charlton, 51. 

p. Miller, 1785a. 

p. Prowse, 1203. 

P. Rogers, 448, 1726. 



clii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



Wiseman v. Chapella, 1118. 

17. Lyman, 1300. 
WiBlezenius t;. OTallon, 182. 
Wisner v, Bardwell, 204. 

r. Schopp, 1623. 
Withall 17. Masterman, 1321. 
Witherow r. Slayback, 671, 710, 711, 

1085. 
Witherspoon v. Mnsselman, 62. 
Witkowski v. Maxwell & Peal, 241, 

979, 979a. 
Witmer Bros. v. Weid, 68. 
Witte 17. Weinberg, 1269. 

17. Williams, 753, 775, 781a. 
Wittenberger v. Spalding, 581. 
Wittey 17. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86. 
Wittich 17. First Nat Bank, 1600. 
Wittle 17. Derby Fishing Co., 410. 
Woflford 17. Board of Police, 1479. 
Wohlford 17. Andrews, 929, 1095. 
Wolf 17. Jewett, 311. 

17. Koppel, 314. 

17. Madden, 1309. 

17. Troxell Est, 196. 
Wolfe V. Myers, 1729. 
Wolfersberger 17. Bucher, 1432. 
Wolfurt V. Pittsburg, 1729a. 
Wollenleber 17. Ketterlinus, 1079, 1081. 
Wolverman i?. Bell, 1377. 
Wolz t*. Parker, 169. 
Wood 17. Bodwell, 1260. 

17. Boylston Nat Bank, 334a, 336, 
339. 

17. Brewer, 305. 

17. Brown, 1158. 

17. Brush, 742, 1428. 

17. Bullens, 1247. 

17. Callaghan, 996, 995a. 

V. Corl, 622, 919, 1031. 

17. Dowry, 112. 

r. Elwood, 688c. 

I'. Flanery, 68, 162. 

r. Gibbs, 898. 

17. Guarantee Co., 1222. 

17. Guarantee Tr. Co., 1505. 

r. Holbeck, 366. 

17. Jefferson County Bank, 1305, 
1326. 

17. McKean, 782. 

17. McMeans, 1084. 

17. Merchants' S., etc., Co., 326a. 

17. Mullen, 626. 

17. Mytton, 130. 

17. Neukirk, 1317a. 

17. Pugh, 623, 624, 1258. 

17. Railway Co., 1739. 

17. Starling, 803. 

17. Steele, 1373, 1373a, 1376. 

17. Surrell, 80. 

17. Tomlin, 268. 

17. Watson, 079. 



Wood V. Wheeler, 867. 

c. Wood, 999a. 
Wooabridge 17. Brigham, 656. 

17. First Nat Bank, 1612a. 

r. Spooner, 80, 180. 
Woodburn 17. Woodburn, 24, 1623. 
Woodbury 17. Crum, 1132. 

17. Moulton, 299. 

17. Roberts, 41. 
Woodcock 17. Houldsworth, 1021, 1052. 
Wood, etc., Machine Co. v. Oliver, 

1300a. 
Woodford 17. Dorwin, 03, 65, 66, 371a. 

V. Whiteley, 1482. 
Woodhouse v, Simmons, 1215a. 
Woodhull 17. Holmes, 815. 
Woodin 17. Foster, 656. 

17. Frayze, 1696. 
Woodman v, Boothy, 713a. 

V, Chapman, 258. 

17. Churchill, 726a, 803. 

17. Eastman, 1131, 1134, 1135. 

17. Thurston, 1090, 1092, 1092a, 
1094. 
Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. 

17. Land, 1759. 
Wood River Bl. 17. First Nat. Bank, 

327, 341, 617, 926, 1600. 
Woodruff V, Heniman, 204. 

17. Hill, 879, 889. 

17. Leonard, 713. 

17. Miss., 67, 1246a, 1570. 

17. Merchants' Bank, 617, 622, 
1571a, 1572. 

17. Munroe, 1351, 1352. 

17. Plant, 1598. 

17. Scruggs, 1665. 

17. Trapnall, 447, 1725. 
Woods V. Armstrong, 197, 198a. 

17. Bailey, 1281, 12816. 

17. Lawrence County, 1494, 1540. 

r. North, 62. 

17. Ridley, 128, 130. 

r. Schroeder, 1662. 

17. Sherman, 1251. 

17. Thiederman, 1734(2. 

17. Viozca, 725. 

17. Wilder, 217, 218, 1060. 

V. Woods, 713a, 1266. 
Woods Sons & Co. t\ Schaefer, 815. 
Woodson 17. Moody, 1788. 

17. Wood, 370, 371, 373. 
Woodstock Bank 17. Downer, 159. 
Woodsum 17. Cole, 782, 1181. 
Woodthorpe 17. Lawes, 979, 983, 991, 

993. 
Woodward 17. Foster, 273, 713a, 719, 
720. 

17. Gunn, 90. 

17. Leonard, 713e. 

f. Lowry, 1092a. 



References are to 
paroffraphs marked |. 



TABLE OF GASBS. 



cliii 



Woodward r. Severance, 703. 

r. Sup. of Calhoim County, 1524, 

1535. 
V, Walton, 1311. 
Woodworth r. Anderson, 1385, 1415. 
r. Bank of America, 152, 1397, 

1401. 
f. Barnett, 200. 
V. Huntoon, 803. 
Wookey c. Pole, 145, 663, 1504. 
Woollen c. Ulrich, 46a, 852. 
r. Whitacre, 852. 
r. Wise, 852. 
WooUey r. Clark, 261. 
r. Clements, 627. 
r. Constant, 148. 
r. Lyon, 911, 1021. 
V. Sergeant, 35. 
Woolf t;. Hamilton, 107. 
Woolfolk r. Duncan, 195a. 
Woolsey v. Crawford, 1449. 
Woonsocket Instn. r. Ballou, 1215&. 
Wooster v. Jenkins, 187. 
Wooten r. MauUsby, 728. 

V, OuUaw, 1220. 
Worcester r. Eaton, 858. 
Worcester County Bank v. Dorchester, 
etc., Bank, 775, 837, 1680. 
1?. Wells, 896. 
Worcester Ins., etc. v, Davis, 1788. 
Worcester Nat. Bank p. Cheney, 829, 

830, 832. 
Worden i*. Bemis, 1732. 
V. Dodge, 50. 
r. Nourse, 992, 993. 
p. Salter, 710. 
Work c. Tatman, 1572, 1574. 
Workman r. Wright, 1351, 1352a. 
Works p. Hershey, 44. 
Worley v. Waldram, 657. 
Woimer v. Waterloo Agricultural 

Works, 182. 
Wormley p. Lowry, 832. 
Worrall p. Gheen, 1408. 
Worsham v. Goar, 1326. 
Worster p. Forbush, 358a. 
Wortendyke r. Mechan, 197, 198, 819. 
Worthington p. Cowles, 7316, 740a. 

p. Railroad Co., 394. 
Worth F. Case, 45, 180. 
Wren p. Pearce, 1764. 
Wright p. Andrews, 1128. 
p. Boyd, 1188. 
p. Brosseau, 368. 
p. Byrne, 185, 271. 
p. Douglas, 1669. 
p. Dyer, 1786. 
p. Hancock, 1472. 
p. Hart, 56. 
p. Irwin, 51. 
p. Kinney, 427. 



Wright p. Laing, 1252. 

p. Leesenfeld, 1091, 1093. 

p. Maidstone, 1482. 

p. Morse, 715. 

p. Parvis & Williams Co., 247, 
253. 

V, Reed, 1672a. 

p. Remington, 80. 

p. Robinson & Co., 1249, 1310, 
1623. 

p. Shaweross, 1043. 

p. Smith, 67. 

p. Steele, 231. 

p. Tracer, 60, 62. 

p. Wright, 25, 743, 1259, 1472, 
1481. 
Wrightson P. Pullan, 370, 371. 
Wroten p. Armut, 769. 
Wroxon r. Macaboy, 725a. 
Wuerst p. Moehrig, 204. 
Wulschner p. Sells, 667a. 
Wyant p. Pattorf, 62a. 
Wyat p. Campbell, 808. 
Wyate p. Evans, 196. 
Wyatt P. Bulmer, 198. 

p. Hodson, 1215a. 

p. Wallace, 199o. 
Wyckoff P. Anthony, 334. 
Wyer v. Dorchester, etc., Bank, 776, 

1680. 
Wyke P. Rogers, 1322. 
Wylie P. Bnce, 509. 

p. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 1499a, 
1503. 
Wyllie P. Pollen, 802. 
Wyman p. Adams, 612, 1113a, 1114. 

p. Colo. Nat. Bank, 334a, 698d, 
812, 823. 

p. Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank, 1643. 

p. Nat. Bank, 326a. 

p. Bobbins, 1437. 

p. Whitehouse, 241. 

p. Yeomans, 1377. 
Wyman, Recr. r. Williams, 1341. 
Wynn p. Alden, 979. 
Wynne p. Callander, 206. 
p. Jackson, 914. 

P. Raikes, 490, 491, 503, 552, 563. 

r. Vvhesenant, 204. 

Y. 

Yale P. Dederer, 248. 

p. Wood, 11. 
Yancy P. Mauck, 1281a. 
Yamell p. Anderson, 1260. 
Yarwood p. Happy, 1714. 
Yates p. Bell, 19, 1636b. 

p. Donaldson, 1335a. 

p. Hall, 221. 

p. Shepardson, 1646. 
Yeager p. Farwell, 1108, 1147, 1168. 



cliv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



References are to 
paragraphs marked |. 



Yeagley p. Webb, 849a. 
Yeates v. Groves, 16a (4), 23. 
Yeatman v, Cullen, 895, 899. 

V. Mattiaon, 176, 185. 
Yeaton v. Bank of Alexandria, 189. 

V, Berney, 643. 

i\ Durgin, 1022. 
Yerker v. Salomon, 195a. 
Yocum V. Smith, 844, 1406. 
York County v. Central R. Co., 1729a. 

r. Jane, 1390. 

r. Pierson, 1328. 
Yorkshire Banking Co. v, Beatson, 

363. . 
Young 17. Adams, 55, 737, 1675. 

V, Bennett, 9S4. 

r. Bryant, 926, 968. 

V, Chew, 354. 

V. Clarendon Township, 1520. 

17. Cole, 733, 1533. 

V. Durgin, 1027. 

V. Glover, 688, 690. 

V, Grote, 540, 842a, 1313, 1405, 
1659. 

V. Harris, 879. 

V. Hudson, 392. 

V, Lehman, 540, 1363, 1369, 1405. 



Young V. Ward, 1184. 

V, Wood, 1281a. 
Youngling v, Kohlkass, 1472. 
Youngs V. Lee, 181, 184, 827, 832a, 

979, 983. 
Youse V, McCreary, 749. 
Yowell r. Dodd, 406. 

Z. 

Zabriskie v, Spielman, 752. 

Zahm r. First Nat. Bank, 1769a. 

Zapalac v, Zapp, 1338. 

Zeis «. Potter, 7266. 

Zeller v, Jordan, 24, 26. 

Zelle V, Ger. Sav. Inst., 1637. 

Zellner v. Cleveland, 271. 

Zent V. Hart, 1215a. 

Zimmer r. Chew, 1192, 1196, 1229. 

Zimmerman v. Adee, 81a. 

V. Anderson, 61. 

r. Rote, 1405, 1407. 
Zimpliman v, Veeder, 833. 
Zink V. Dick, 814a, 815. 
Zolloman v. San Francisco, 218. 
Zwinger v. Samuda, 1713, 



NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. 



NEGOTIABLE INSTRDMENTS. 



BOOK I. 

THE MAKING OF THE INSTRUMENT, 



CHAPTER I. 

NATURE, HISTORY, AND USES OP NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. 



SECTION I. 

NATUBE^ ORIGIN, AND HI8T0BT OF BILLS AND NOTES. 

§ !• An instniment is called negotiable when the legal title to 
the iostrumeBt itself, and to the whole amount of money expressed 
upon its face, may be transferred from one to another by indorse- 
ment and delivery by the holder, or by delivery only. The pecu- 
liaritieB whidi attach to n^otiable paper are the growth of time, 
and were acceded for the benefit of trade. 

It was 'a rule of the common law of England, that a chose in 
action — by which is meant a claim which the holder would be 
driven to his action at law to recover — could not be assigned to 
a stranger, our forefathers conceiving that if claims and debts 
could be assigned, " pretended titles might be granted to great men, 
whereby right might be trodden down and the weak oppressed, 
which the common law forbiddeth." * The first relaxation of this 
nde was made in respect to bills of exchange, and was gradually 
extended to notes and other securities, imtil the rule itself dis- 
appeared. 

But while all choses in action are now transferable, the nego- 
tiable instrument is the only species which carries by transfer a 
clear title and a full measure ; and like an instrument under seal 

1. Coke Litt 214a; Chitty on Billfl [*7L 9; Edwards on BUls, 55. 

[1] 



2 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § Itt. 

imports a consideration. It has therefore three peculiar and dis- 
tinguishing characteristics :* 

First Kespecting the title. If a horse, or other personal chattel, 
or a nonnegotiable instrument, be stolen, no purchaser, however 
innocent or ignorant of the theft, can acquire title against the true 
owner, who may at any place, and at any time, identify his prop- 
erty and reclaim it. But if a negotiable instrument be stolen, and 
transferred by the thief to a third person in the usual course of 
business, before maturity, and for a valuable consideration, the 
person so acquiring it may hold it against the world. 

Second. Respecting the amount. If a bond or nonnegotiable 
note be assigned, the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor, 
and if the bond or note has been paid, or is subject to any counter- 
claim or set-off against the original maker, they attach to and 
incumber it into whosesoever hands it may fall. But a negotiable 
paper carries the right to the whole amount it secures on its face, 
and is subject to none of the defenses which might have been made 
between the original or intervening parties, against any one who 
acquired it in the usual course of business before maturity. It is 
a circulating credit like the currency of the country, and, before 
maturity, the genuineness and solvency of the parties are alone to 
be considered in determining its value. It has been fitly termed 
" a courier without luggage." ^ 

Third. Respecting the consideration. By the common law, an 
instniment under seal imports a consideration, by virtue of the 
solemn ceremony of its execution; and no other nonn^otiable 
instrument does. A bill of exchange, however, by the usages of 
merchants, also prima facie imports a consideration ; and now by 
statute promissory notes of a certain kind are placed on the same 
footing. As between immediate parties, the true state of the case 
may be shown, and the presumption of consideration rebutted. 
But when a bill of exchange or negotiable note has passed to a 
bona fide holder for value, and before maturity, no want or fail- 
ure of consideration can be shown. Its defects perish with its 
transfer; while, if the instrument be not a bill of exchange or 
negotiable note, they adhere to it in whosesoever hands it may go. 

§ la. The term " negotiable," in its enlarged signification, is 
used to describe any written security which may be transferred 



2. Overton v. Tyler, 3 Barr, 346, Gibson, C. J.; Broi^vn v. First Nat. Bank, 
103 Ala. 123, 15 So. 435. 



§§ 2, 3. NATURE, OBIOIN, AND HISTORY OF BILLS AND NOTBS. 3 

by iDdorsement and delivery, or by delivery merely, so as to vest 
in the indorsee the legal title, and thus enable him to bring a suit 
thereon in his own name. But in a strictly commercial classifi- 
cation, and as the term is technically used, it applies only to those 
instnunents which, like bills of exchange, not only carry the 
legal title with them by indorsement, or delivery, but carry as 
well, when transferred before maturity, the right of the trans- 
feree to demand the full amounts which their faces call for. 
''Assignable " is the more appropriate term to describe bonds, and 
ordinary notes, or notes of hand as they are most commonly called ; 
as " negotiable '' is the more fitting term to describe the peculiar 
instruments of commerce.' 

§ 8. Bills of exchange were probably the first instruments for 
the payment of money that were accorded a negotiable quality, 
thon^ promissory notes, being simpler in form, were doubtless 
used as evidences of debt before bills of exchange came in vogue 
among merchants. Certainly these two securities were recog- 
nized as negotiable instruments before any other pai)er repre- 
sentatives of money or property passed currently from hand to 
hand in like manner as money; and from them, as fruitful 
parents, have spnmg all the varieties of negotiable instnunonts 
now known. Of bills and notes, therefore, we shall first speak, 
and after they have been sufficiently treated of, the other varieties 
of negotiable instruments will receive due attention. 

§3. Af to the origin and history of bills and notes. — The 

numerous commentators on the law of bills of exchange and prom- 
issory notes have generally enriched their pages with the results of 
their classic and antiquarian researches into the origin and history 
of those instruments. But notwithstanding the number and the 
diligence of the laborers in this interesting field of inquiry, it can- 
not be now stated, with any degree of certainty, by whom they 
were invented, or when they were first used. In respect to bills of 
exchange, it is said by Pothier, that there is no vestige of them 
among the Romans, or of any contract of exchange ; for though 
it appears that Cicero directed one of his friends at Rome, who 
had money to receive at Athens, to cause it to be paid to his son 

3. See Odell v. Gray, 15 Mo. 342; International Bank v. German Bank, 71 
Mo. 183; Cronin v. Patrick Co., 4 Hughes, 529; Provident Tr. Co. v. Mercer 
Co., 170 U. S. flOfl, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788, text cited. See De HasB v. Dibert, 
17 C. C. A. 79, 70 Fed. 227. 



4 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 3. 

* 

at that place, and that friend accordingly wrote to one of his 
debtors at Athens, and ordered him to pay a sum of money to 
Cicero's son, yet, it is observed, that this mode amounted to 
nothing more than a mere order or mandate, and was not that 
species of negotiation which is conducted through the medium of 
a bill of exchange.^ 

Chancellor Kent seems to think that a passage in one of the 
pleadings of Isocrates indicates the use of bills of exchange 
amongst the Greeks,^ but Story considers that the transaction re- 
ferred to was little more than the Tery case alluded to by Cicero, 
and put in the Boman law.^ Sir William Blackstone, remarking 
upon this subject, says : ^^ Tliis method is said to have been 
brought into general use by the Jews and Lombards when ban- 
ished for their usury and other vices, in order the more easily to 
draw their effects out of France and England into those countries 
in which they had chosen to reside. But the invention of it was 
a little earlier; for the Jews were banished out of Guienne in 
1287, and out of England in 1290 ; and in 1236 the use of paper 
credit was introduced into the Mogul Empire in China. "^ And 
Chitty says : " Other authors have attributed the invention to 
the Florentines, when, being driven out of their country by the 
faction of the Gebelings, they established themselves at Lyons and 
other towns. On the whole, however, there is no certainty on the 
subject, though it seems clear foreign bills were in use in the four- 
teenth century, as appears from a Venetian law of that period; 
and an inference drawn from the statute 5 Eich. II., stat 1, chap. 
2, warrants the conclusion that foreign bills were introduced into 
this country previously to the year 1381."* Macpherson, in his 
"Annals of Commerce," speaks of letters of credit being employed 
by King John to procure advancements to his agents in Rome as 
early as 1202.* And there is reason to believe that bills of ex- 
change were kno^vn in England as early as 1307, since in that 
year King Edward I. ordered certain money collected in England 
for the Pope, not to be remitted to him in coin or bullion, but by 
way of exchange (per viam Camhii)}^ 



4. Pothier de Change, n. 6; Story on BiUs, 8 6; 1 Bell Com. b. 3, c. 2, § 4, 
p. 386. 

5. 3 Kent Com., Lect. 44. 6. Story on Bills, % 6, note 4. 
7. 2 Bl. Com. 467. 8. Chitty on BUls [•11], 16. 

9. Page 181, quoted in 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 4. 

10. Anderson's History of Commerce, vol. I, c. 361. 



§§ 4y 5. NATUBE, OBIQIN, AND HISTORY OF BILLS AND NOTES. 5 

§ 4. The term " bill of exchange/' derived from the French 
phrase, " billet de change/' is suggestive of the use which it sub- 
serves — that of perfecting a previous distinct contract of ex- 
change or baigain between A. and B. at one place, that A. would 
cause money to be paid to B. or his assign at another place, by C, 
a debtor to A., or supplied by him with value to the amount.^^ 
Thus^ if A. and B. are in England, and C. in Jamaica be indebted 
to A. one thousand pounds, and B. be going to Jamaica, B. may 
pay A. this thousand pounds and take a bill of exchange drawn by 
A. in England upon C. in Jamaica, and collect the amount from 
C. when he comes thither ; and thereby A. receives his debt, at any 
distance of place, by transferring it to B., and B. receives back his 
money at the end of his journey — and the parties are mutually 
benefited by avoiding the dangers of loss or robbery which would 
attend the actual transmission of funds to and fro.^ 

From this primitive use, bills of exchange became, in the ex- 
pansion of commerce, the evidences of valuable property, and in 
a great measure the equivalent of money, enlarging the capital 
stock of wealth in circulation, and thereby facilitating and in- 
creasing the operations of trade between communities and 
nations." 

§6. Promiaiory notes have as obscure an origin as bills of ex- 
diange. — There is no doubt that they were in use among the 
Romans,^* but they seem never to have acquired those negotiable 
qualities which now impart to them their chief value as instru- 
ments of commerce. They were in use upon the continent of 
Europe before their introduction into England, where they first 
came in vogue about the middle of the seventeenth century, "^ 
although it has been thought that they possess a more recent 
origin." In the earlier reports the terms " bill " and " note '' 
appear to have been used indiscriminately, and it is difficult to 
determine in many cases whether the particular suit was brought 
upon the one instrument or the other. ^^ It has been a much de- 
bated question whether or not the common law of England recog- 
nized the negotiability of promissory notes ; and most vigorously 

11. CliHty on Bills, 1. 12. 2 Bl. Com. 467. 

18. Gibson y. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 61S. 14. Story on Notes, 8 5. 

15. Story on Notes, 8 6. 16. Buller v. Crips, 6 Mod. 20. 
17. Grant v. Vaughan, 3 Burr. 1626. 



6 NEOOTIABI^E INSTBUMBNTS. § 5. 

waa the negative advocated by Lord Holt, who declared that the 
effort to place them on the same footing as bills of exchange 
" proceeded from the obstinacy and opinionativeness of the mer- 
chants who were endeavoring to set the law of Lombard street 
above the law of Westminster Hall."^® This controversy was 
terminated by the passage of the statute 3 and 4 Anne, chap. 9 
[1705] (made perpetual by the statute 7 Anne, chap. 25), which 
made promissory notes " assignable or indorsable over in the same 
manner as inland bills of exchange are, or may be according to 
the custom of merchants."^* 

This statute has been adopted in some of the States of the 
United States, or in its lieu other statutes prescribing the criteria 
and conditions of negotiability.^ It is not therefore at this time 
a question of much practical consequence whether at common law 
I)romissory notes were negotiable or not; though occasionally the 
point is presented in States where the statute law on the subject 
fixes other criteria of negotiability than those established by the 
statute of Anne. By some authorities it is contended that the 
statute of Anne was only declaratory of their then existing 

18. Gierke v. Martin, 2 Ld. Raym. 757 (1703), 1 Salk. 129, 3G3; Chitty, Jr., 
on BUIb, 219. 

19. The statute of Anne (3 & 4 Anne, chap. 9) provides: " That all notes in 
writing that shall be made and signed by any person, etc., whereby such 
person, etc., shall promise to pay to any other person, his, her, or their order, 
or unto bearer, any sum of money mentioned in such note, shall be taken and 
construed to be, by virtue thereof, due and payable to any such person, etc., 
to whom the same is made payable; and also every such note payable to any 
person, etc., his, her, or their order, shall be assignable or indorsable over, 
in the same manner as inland bills of exchange are or may be, according to 
the custom of merchant^; and that the persons, etc., to whom such sum of 
money is or shall be by such note made payable, shall and may maintain an 
action for the same, in such manner as he, she, or they, might do upon any 
inland bill of exchange, made or drawn according to the custom of mer- 
chants, against the person, etc., who signed the same; and that any person, 
etc., to whom such note that is made payable to any person, etc., his, her, 
or their order, is indorsed or assigned, or the money therein mentioned 
ordered to be paid by indorsement thereon, shall and may maintain his, her. 
or their action for such sum of money, either against the person, etc., who 
signed the note, or against any of the persons that indorsed the same, in 
like manner as in cases of inland bills of exchange." 

20. Cowan v. Hallack, 9 Colo. 579, citing the text; Pool v. Anderson, 116 
Ind. 92, 18 N. E. 445. 



§6. FOSEION AND INLAND BILLS. 7 

Status,^ while by others the result of Lord Holt's reasoning is 
concurred in.^ Professor Parsons concludes that " these notes 
were, at the time the statute was made, negotiable by the law mer- 
chant of England, which was and is as much a part of the law of 
England as — to use the strong language of Christian — the laws 
relating to marriage and murder.** 

SECTION 11. 

FOBEION AND INLAND BILLS. 

§6. Bills of exchange are either foreign or inland, — foreign 
when drawn in one State or country, and made payable in another 
State or country ; inland when drawn, and made payable, in the 
same State or country. Inland bills are of later origin than for- 
eign biUs, not having been in use in England at a much earlier 
period than the reign of Charles 11.^ The advantages derived 
from employing foreign bills for remittance of money induced 
merchants universally to adopt them, and originally deriving their 
sanction from the custom of merchants, they were subsequently 
recognized and approved by the judicial tribunals, and the engage- 
ments of the various parties to them enforced.* Inland bills, 
like them, were at first more restricted in their operation than at 
present, for it was deemed essential to their validity that a special 
custom for the drawing and accepting them should exist between 
the towns in which the drawer and acceptor lived ; or if they lived 
in the same town, that such a custom should exist therein.^ At 
first, also, effect was only given to the custom when the parties 

21. Inrin r. Maury, 1 Mo. 194; Dunn v. Adams, 1 Ala. 627. See Edwards 
on BiUs, 51, 52; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 10-13. There is a very learned 
and able dissertation on the progress of the Lex Mercatoria and the negotia- 
bility of promissory notes in 1 Cranch S. C. R., appendix, note A, 368. 

25L Caton v. Lenox, 5 Rand. 31 ; Davis v. Miller, 14 Gratt. 18 ; Norton v. 
Rose, 2 Wash. (Va.) 233; First Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 25 Mo. App. 170. 

28. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 13. 

24. Chitty on Bills [*11], 16. 

85. Chitty on Bills [*11], 16; Martin v. Boure, Cro. Jac. 6 (1602) ; Oaste v. 
Taylor, Cro. Jac. 306 (1613) ; Hussey v. Jacob, Ld. Raym. 87 (1696) ; ChiUy, 
Jr., 157, 158, 189. 

86. BuUer v. Cripps. 6 Mod. 29 (1704); Pinkney v. Hall, Ld. Raym. 175; 
Chitty on BiUs [•!!, 12], 16; Chitty, Jr., 222. 



8 NEGOTIABLE INSTBUMENT8. §§ 7-9. 

were merchants, though afterward extended, as in the case of for- 
eign bills, to all persons whether traders or not*' 

§ 7. The chief difference between foreign and inland bills is this : 
that the former must be protested in order to charge the drawer, 
while the latter need not be.^ But there are other differences 
important to be observed. Every contract, as to its validity, 
nature, interpretation, and effect, is governed by the laws of the 
place where it is made, unless it is to be performed in another 
place, in which case it is governed by its laws ; and as the drawer, 
acceptor, and each indorser is a several and distinct contracting 
party, his liabilities are to be ascertained by the law of the place 
where his engagement is to be performed. This subject, and 
also the interesting questions which arise when a bill or note is 
signed or dated in one place and delivered in another, will be dis- 
cussed elsewhere.* 

§ 8. What bills are deemed foreign in England — In England, 
whence comes the distinction between foreign and inland bills, a 
bill drawn in Ireland and payable in England is deemed a foreign 
bill.^ And where a bill was drawn in London upon a merchant 
in Brussels, payable to the drawer^s order in London, it was held 
an inland bill, BoUand, B., saying: ^^An inland bill is a bill 
drawn in and payable in Great Britain, which this bill is."" 

§ 9. States foreign as to each other — There is no doubt that the 
several States of the United States are foreign as to each other; 
for though in the a^regate they form a confederated government, 
yet the several States retain (theoretically) their individual sov- 
ereignties, and, with respect to their municipal regulations, are 
foreign to each other.^ Thus, if a drawer and drawee reside in 

27. Bromwick v. Lloyd, 2 Lutw. 1585; Chitty, Jr., 193; Sarsfteld ▼. With- 
erly, Carth. 82; Chitty on BUIb [•ll, 12], 16. 

28. See vol. 11, chapter XXYIII, on Protest, I 926 et 9eq. 

29. See chapter XXVII, on the Conflict of Laws, { 868 et seq. 

30. Mahoney v. Ashlin, 2 B. & Ad. 478. 

31. Anmer v. Clark, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 468. 

82. Armstrong y. Amesican Ex. Nat. Bank, 133 U. S. 433; Life Ins. Go. v. 
Pendleton, 112 U. S. 696; Joseph v. Salomon, 19 Fla. 632, citing the text; 
Warder v. Arell, 2 Wash. (Va.) 298; Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh, 37; Buck- 
ner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586; Lonsdale v. Brown, 4 Wash. C. C. 86, 153; Cheno* 
with V. Chamberlin, 6 B. Mon. 60; Duncan y. Course, 3 Const. R. (So. Car.) 
100; State Bank y. Hayes, 3 Ind. 400; Warren y. Coombs, 20 Me. 139; Tieonie 
Bank y. Stackpole, 41 Me. 302; Phcenix Bank y. Hussey, 12 Pick. 483; Garter 



§ 10. FOBEION AND INLAND BILLS. 9 

Kentucky, and the bill be payable in New Orleans, Louisiana, it 
is a foreign bill f^ though if it be drawn in Kentucky on a New 
Orleans merchant, and be payable ill Kentucky, it would be 
inland.^ 

§ 10. Bnles of decision of Federal courts. — In the Federal 
courts of the United States, the decisions are sometimes in con- 
formity with those of the State courts of last resort in respect to 
the liabilities of parties to bills and notes, but not uniformly. The 
thirty-fourth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides that 
"the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, 
treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or 
provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common 
law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply." 
But this section has been held to be limited in its application to the 
laws of the several States of a strictly local character, that is to say, 
to the positive statutes of the States, and their interpretation by 
the local tribunals, and the rights and titles to things having a 
permanent locality, such as real estate, and not to extend to ques- 
tions of general commercial law. Therefore where any contro- 
versy arises as to the liability of a party to a bill of exchange, 
promissory note, or other negotiable paper, in one of the Federal 
courts of the United States, which is not determined by the posi- 
tive words of a State statute, or by its meaning as construed by 
the State courts, the Federal courts will apply to its solution the 
general principles of the law merchant, regardless of any local 
decision.* 

V. Union Bank, 7 Humphr. 548; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 568; WeUs v. White- 
head, 15 Wend. 627; Todd ▼. Neal's Admr., 49 Ala. 286; Donegan v. Wood, 
49 Ala. 242. Cantraf Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns. 376, Yanness, J. 

83. Buekner t. Finley, 2 Pet 686. 

84. Amner y. dark, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 468. If a draft is drawn on a 
resident of a State and payable within that State it is an inland bill of 
exchange notwithstanding the fact that the drawer lives in another State 
and the draft was actually drawn in the latter. Sylvester v. Crohan, 63 
Hon, 509, 18 N. Y. Supp. 546. 

85. Swift V. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, Story, J., saying: "We have not now the 
slightest difficulty in holding that this section, upon its true intendments 
and construction, is strictly limited to local statutes and local usages of the 
character before stated, and does not extend to contracts and other instru- 
ments of a commercial nature, the true interpretation and effect whereof 
are to be sought, not in the decisions of the local tribunals, but in the general 
pnndples and doctrines of commercial jurisprudence. Undoubtedly, the de- 
cisions of the local tribunals upon such subjects are entitled to and will 



10 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 10a. 

§ 10a. Federal jnrisdiotion in oaiei of bills af ^change and 
promissory notes. — By the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 it was 
provided that no district or circuit court shall " have cognizance 
of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note, or 
other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might 
have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents, 
if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of 
exchange."*^ According to the established construction of this 
act the right of the holder of a promissory note, payable to 
a particular person or bearer, to sue in his own name, does 
not depend upon the citizenship of the named payee, or of the 
first, or of any previous holder; because in all such cases the title 
passed by delivery and not by \artue of any assignment.*^ By act 
of Congress of March 3, 1875, it is provided: "Nor shall any 
circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit founded on 
contract in favor of an assignee^ unless a suit might have been 
prosecuted to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, 
except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the law 
merchant and bills of exchange." ^ 

The restriction was thus removed as to " promissory notes nego- 
tiable by the law merchant," and jurisdiction in such suits made 
to depend upon the citizenship of the parties as in other cases.^ 

receive the most deliberate attention and respect of this court; but they 
cannot furnish positive rules, or conclusive authority, by which our own 
judgments are to be bound up and governed. The law respecting negotiable 
instruments may be truly declared, in the language of Cicero, adopted by 
Lord Mansfield in Luke v. Lyde, 2 Burr. 882, 887, to be, in a great measure. 
not the law of a single country only, but of the commercial world: 
' Non erit alia lex RomcB, alia Athenia, alia nunc^ alia poathac, sed et apud 
omnea gentes, et omni tempore, una eademque lew obtinehit.* " Mercer County 
v. Hackett, 1 Wall. 96; Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott. 19 Wall. d67. See 
on this subject article in American Law Review for April, 1875, and Gelpcke 
V. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; Gates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. (10 Gtto) 239: 
Kailroad Co. v. National Bank, 102 U. S. (12 Gtto) 14. See post, §§ 1525, 1526; 
Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton Mfg. Co., 3 C. C. A. 1, 52 Fed. 191. 

36. See S 11 of Act of Sept. 24, 1789, chap. 20. 

37. Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 243; Bank of Ky. v. Wooster, 2 Pet. 318 
Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U. S. 689; Thomson v. Lee County, 3 WalL 327 
BushneU v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387; City of Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. 282 
Cooper v. Town of Thompson, 13 Blatchf. 434; Coe v. Cayuga Lake R. Co.. 
19 Blatchf. 522. 

38. S 1, chap. 137, Supp. to Revised Statutes of the U. S., p. 174. 

39. New Grleans v. Quinlan, 173 U. S. 192, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 329; Treadway 
V. Sanger, 107 U. S. 323, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 691. 



§ 10a. FOEEIQN AND INLAND BILLS. 11 

This provision of the statute has been held not to apply in cases 
removed from the State courts under the removal acts, but to the 
original jurisdiction of the Federal courts.*^ 

In some cases it has been held that the terms "promissory 
notes negotiable by the law merchant " embrace such instruments 
as would be negotiable according to the general principles of the 
law merchant, which was a part of the common law,** while others 
consider that they are confined to those instruments which are ne- 
gotiable according to the local law, that is, as said by Gresham, J. : 
" Notes having the qualities of promissory notes negotiable by the 
law merchant, namely, notes which, in the hands of a bona fide pur- 
chaser for value before maturity, were subject to no equities in 
favor of the maker."** This latter view seems to us the correct 
one. An instrument cannot be negotiable when made in a State 
whose statutes declare it otherwise. And if the broad interpre- 
tation is given to the words " negotiable by the law merchant," 
the result in some cases would be that suit would be maintainable 
in a Federal court because the instrument was in a form nego- 
tiable " by the law merchant " when negotiable qualities under 
State statutes did not exist. The intent of the statute was doubt- 
less to ^ve jurisdiction in cases of negotiable instruments; and 
this would be ousted in some cases where the instrument by State 
statute was made negotiable., though not so by the law merchant 
independent thereof. The statute would seem to have contem- 
plated substance rather than form, and the construction given it 
in the cases which are approvingly cited, enforces this view. 

By act of Congress of March 3, 1887, it is declared: "Nor 
shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit, 
except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of 
any promissory note, or other chose in action^ in favor of an 
assignee, or of any subsequent holder, if such instrument be pay- 
able to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such 
suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said 
contents if no assignment or transfer had been made.** This 

40. Delaware County t. Diebold & Co., 133 U. S. 473; City of Lexington ▼. 
Butler, 14 Wall. 283. 

41. Windsor 8ay. Bank t. McMahon, 38 Fed. 283; Beverley v. Davidson 
Co., 2 Flipp. 507; Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger, 2 Curtis, 338; Adams v. 
Addington, 16 Fed. 89. 

4a. Gr^g v. Weston, 7 Biss. 3flO; Porter v. aty of Janesville, 3 Fed. 317. 

48. U. S. Stat, ait Large, 1886-1887, p. 562, chap. 373; New Orleans y. 
Qoinlan, 173 U. S. 192, 19 S. Ct 329. And see Act of August 13, 1888, chap. 
866, 25 Stat. 433. 



12 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. §§ 11, 12. 

statute has been held to prohibit suits in the Federal courts in all 
cases, other grounds of jurisdiction being wanting, except suits 
on foreign bills of exchange, and except suits on promissory notes 
made payable to bearer and executed by a corporation.^ 

§ 11. The face af the bill does not always disclose its character. — 

Whether or not a bill is foreign or inland, and by what laws the 
liabilities of parties to bills and notes are to be governed, may 
often be not sufficiently disclosed by the date of place on the instru- 
ment itself, as the courts of the several States, as of different 
countries, upon settled principles, do not take judicial notice of 
the divisions of foreign States into counties, towns, and cities. 
Thus, in England, the averment that a bill was .drawn in Dublin 
was not considered equivalent to averring that it was an Irish bill. 
Abbott, C. J., said: "The framer of the declaration has not 
said that Dublin is in Ireland, and we cannot assume it, what- 
ever may be our belief on the subject;" and Bailey, J., said: 
" There may be a Dublin in America or Scotland."**^ So the 
Supreme Court of Texas have held that they could not judicially 
know that a note payable in New Orleans was payable in Louisi- 
ana,*® or a bill dated there was drawn in Louisiana;*^ or that a 
note dated " Philadelphia " was made in Pennsylvania.^ So in 
Missouri, as to New Orleans, the court would not take judicial 
notice that a bill dated there was foreign.^ 

§ 12. It may be difficult sometimes to determine whether a bill 
is inland or foreign. — Thus, suppose a Boston merchant, temporar- 
ily in the city of New York, were to draw his bill on a New York 
merchant., payable in New York, but were to date it in Boston, 
would it be an inland or a foreign bill ? In relation to innocent 
third parties, who have taken the bill in the belief that it was 
what its face imported, it would undoubtedly be held foreign.*^ 

44. Wilson v. Knox County, 43 Fed. 481, a county warrant. See Newgass 
V. New Orleans, 33 Fed. 196; Rollins v. Chaffee County, 34 Fed. 91; New 
Orleans v. Quinlan, 173 U. S. 192, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 329. Certificates of cor- 
porations payable to bearer were sued on and action sustained. See also New 
Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906. 

45. Kearney v. King, 18 Eng. C. L. 28. 

46. Andrews v. Hoxie, 5 Tex. 171. 

47. Yale v. Wood, 30 Tex. 17. 

48. Cook V. Crawford, 4 Tex. 420. 

49. Riggin v. Collier, 6 Mo. 668. 

50. See chapter XXVII, on the Conflict of Laws, and Snaith v. Mingay, 1 
Maule & S. 87; Lennig v. Ralston, 23 Pa. St. 137. 



§g 13, 14. FOBEIGN A2^D INLAND BILLS. 18 

^'As between the original parties and others having notice of the 
circmnstances under which the bill was drawn, the question would 
be more doubtful; but we think it would, even then, be held to 
be a foreign bill, especially if it appeared that it was drawn in 
that form for no wrongful purpose, but only that the bill might 
conform to the drawer's usual course of business, and be what it 
would have been had he not happened to be at the time in New 
York. The converse of this has been decided." ^^ Such is the 
language of Professor Parsons on this question, which we adopt 
as a succinct and judicious view of the law.^ 

§13. If a bill be upon its face an inland bill, the fact that 
it was actually drawn and delivered in a foreign State will not 
divest it of its inland character. Thus, where a bill was drawn 
in Wisconsin^ but dated East Fork, in Illinois, it was held in the 
latter State that it must be treated and considered as an inland 
bill. ** Such was the intention and agreement of the parties, as 
shown on the face of the instrument. That it was competent for 
the parties, both being citizens of Illinois, to provide for their 
express agreement that it should be subject to and construed by 
the laws of this State, is too well established by authority to 
admit of doubt.'*" 

§ 14- The presumption is that a bill purporting to be drawn 

abroad was really so drawn. But evidence would be admissible 

to show that a bill purporting to have been drawn abroad was, 

in fact, drawn within the country where suit is brought, and is 

therefore void, for want of a stamp required by the "internal 

revenue laws of such country.*^ But it has been recently held, 

in Massachusetts, that the maker or indorser of a note cannot, 

as against the indorsee in that State for value, before maturity 

and without notice, show that the note, which was dated in 

Boston, with intent that it should be a Massachusetts contract, 

was actually made in New York, and on account of illegal interest, 

was void under the usury laws of the latter State.** 

51. Strawbridge v. Robinson, 5 Gilm. 470. 

52. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 57. 

53. Strawbridge v. Robinson, 5 Gilm. 472, Caton, J. 

54. Abraham v. Dubois, 4 Campb. 269; Bire v. Moreau, 2 Car, & P. 376 (12 
^ng* C. L.); Jordaine t. La«fabrooke, 7 T. R. 601; Steadman v. Duhamel, 1 
^' B. 888. See post, § 869 et aeq. 

55. Towne y. Rice, 122 Mass. 67. 



14 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. §§ 15, 16. 



SECTION III. 

THE EFFECT OF A BILL OF EXCHANGE; WHETHER OE NOT IT IS AN 

ASSIGNMENT. 

§ 16. As we have already seen, heretofore it was the policy of 
the common law to interdict the assignment of possibilities, rights, 
titles, and things in action, on the ground, as stated by Lord 
Coke, that " it would be the occasion of multiplying of conten- 
tions and suits, of great oppression of the people, and chiefly of 
terre-tenants, and the subversion of the due and equal execution 
of justice."**** Bills of exchange and promissory notes have long 
been recognized exceptions to this rule; and by courts of equity, 
it has long been discredited, and assignments of a mere naked 
possibility or chose in action for valuable consideration have 
been held valid and effectuated by them.**^ And courts of law, 
following in the footsteps of equity, now recognize and enforce 
such assignments in suits brought in the name of the assignor 
for the benefit of the assignee, it being necessary for the assignee 
to assert his rights at law in that form, as the want of privity of 
contract between himself and the debtor is considered to stand 
in the way of a suit in his own name,^ except where expressly 
allowed by statute. 

§ 16. The drawing and transferring of bills of exchange de- 
pend upon principles of the law merchant, which apply peculiarly 
to negotiable instruments. But the effect of the drawing of a bill 
of exchange, upon the rights and interests of the parties in the 
funds which is in the hands of the drawee, depends very fre- 
quently upon principles derived from the doctrines of courts of 
equity in respect to equitable assignments. And we shall now 
consider the effect of a bill or order upon the fund on which it 
is drawn. This inquiry naturally divides itself into several 
branches: First. What is the effect of a bill of exchange (a 
negotiable bill in its commercial sense) drawn for the whole 
amount of a fund in the drawee's hand? Second. What is the 
effect of a nonnegotiable order for the whole of a fund ? Third. 
What is the effect of a bill of exchange for part ot a fund? 

56. Coke's R., Part X, 48a. 

57. 3 I^ad. Ca8. in Equity [•652]. 307: Chitty on Bills [V, 8], 9, 10. 

58. Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 98; Mandeville v. Welch, 6 Wheat. 277; 
Chitty on Bills [♦9], 10. 



§ 16a. THE EFFECT OF A BILX. OF EXCHANGE. 15 

And fourth. What is the effect of a nonnegotiable order for part 
of a fund? 

§ 16a. The questions stated have elicited very diverse and 
conflicting opinions, and it has been held or declared in judicial 
decisions: 

(1) That an unaccepted bill of exchange for the whole 
amount of the debt due by the drawee to the drawer, or 
for the whole of the funds in the drawee's hands, oper- 
ates an equitable assignment of the debt or funds ;^ and 

59. In Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 16, Dewey, J., said: *' It seems to be 
equally well settled that a draft by the creditor on his debtor in the form of a 
bill of Citchange to the amount of the deht^ or the whole furAs in his hands, 
is a good and valid assignment of the debt or fund." In Robins v. Bacon, 3 
GreenL 349, Mellen, C. J., said: "A case which seems directly in point 
is that of Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277. In that case it was decided, 
as stated by Story, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, that ' where an 
order is drawn for a particular fund, it amounts to an equitable assignment 
of the fund ; and, after notice to the drawee, it binds the fund in his hands.' *' 
la these cases the bills were not negotiable; but no distinction in respect to 
them was taken. In Corser v. Craig, 1 Wash. C. C. 426, suit was brought by 
the payee and indorser, for the benefit of his indorsee, against the drawee. 
Action was sustained. This is going farther than any other adjudicated 
cases we know of. Had action been brought in the name of the drawer for 
the last indorsee's benefit, it would have been unobjectionable, as we think, 
and the following language of Washington, J., would have been applicable. 
He said: " If the drawee refuse to accept, and pay the bill, the right of the 
holder to the debt once assigned to him is not thereby impaired; although 
he may not be entitled to recover the same in his own name, for the want of 
a promise to pay. But he may sue the drawer, or the drawee in the name of 
the drawer, for the debt originally due, in consequence of the implied contract 
of th3 assignor of a chose in action, that the debtor shall pay, and, on failure, 
that the assignor will. The bill being retained after protest, by the assignee, 
is evidence that the amount has not been paid by the drawer or any of the 
indorsers. I see no possible mischief which can result from this doctrine. For, 
if after payment refused, and protest made, the drawee should pay over the 
funds in his hands to the drawer, or to his order, without notice from the 
first assignee, that he should retain the bill and look to him for the amount, 
M> far as he was boimd to pay ; this would be a good defense against a suit 
brought in the name of the drawer." In Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 97, where 
bin was for whole amount, it was held that after presentment of the bill, 
funds could not be reached by attachment at suit of drawer's creditors. Field. 
J., said: "The want of a written acceptance does not affect the right of 
Howell (the holder) to the money due, but only the mode of enforcing it. 
With the acceptance he could have sustained an action upon the order ; with- 
out it he must recover upon the original demand by force of the assignment. 



ji 



16 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 16a. 

contrariwise that it does not of itself operate such an assign- 
ment.*^ 

(2) That a bill of exchange for part of a debt or fund is not 
an assignment pro tanto unless accepted,^ and although it be 
nonnegotiable.® But the theory of a bill, as stated by some 
of the best writers, would lead to a different conclusion,® and a 
check, which is a species of bill, has been, in a number of cases, 
held an equitable assignment pro tanto.^ 

(3) That an order for an entire debt due by the drawee to 
the drawer, or an entire fund in his hands, specifying the debt or 
fund, operates an equitable assignment, and binds the drawee as 
soon as he has notice.* This doctrine is well settled. 

Under the old common-law practice, the action could only be maintained in 
the name of the assignor for the benefit of the assignee, but under our system 
it may be brought in the name of the assignee as the party beneficially inter- 
ested. Courts of law, equally with courts of equity, gave effect to assign- 
ments like the one under consideration, by controlling the proceeds of the 
judgments re cove r e d for the benefit of- the assignee." Nimocks v. Woody, 97 
N. C. 1; Lee v. Robinson, 2 N. Eng. (R. I.) 620; Roberts v. Austin, 26 Iowa, 
315. See vol. II, chapter XLVII, on Checks; Chitty on Bills, p. 1 (13th Am. 
ed.) ; Hirshfield v. Ludwig, 69 Hun, 554, 24 N. Y. Supp. 634. 

00. Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 15; Shand v. DuBoisson, IS Eq. 
Ois. 2S3; Plrst Nat. Bank v. Dubuque S. R. Co., 52 Iowa, 37S; Bush v. Foote, 
58 Miss. 5. 

01. Brill V. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 457; Att'y-Geni v. Continental life Ins. Co., 71 
N. Y. 325; Noe v. Christie, 51 N. Y. 273; Throop Grain Qeaner Co. v. Smith, 
110 N. Y. 90; People v. Remington, 45 Hun, 335; Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 
84; Chase v. Alexander, 6 Mo. App. 506. 

03. In Shaver v. West Un. Tel. Co., 57 N. Y. 461, the nonnegotiable bill ran. 
" please pay D. L. N. $50 monthly on last day of each and every month, com- 
mencing March 31st, 1868, until the sum of $300 is paid, and charge my salary 
account." Held not an assignment, Lott, Ch. C, saying: "It is not payable 
out of a particular fund." 

03. Story on Bills, { 13. 

04. See vol. II, §§ 1643, 1646; First Nat. Bank v. Coates, 8 Fed. 540, Mil- 
ler, J. 

05. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Robins v. Bacon, 3 Greenl. 346: 
Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 N. Y. 243; McMenomy v. Ferrers, 3 Johns. 72; 
Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 18; Walker v. Munro, 18 Mo. 564; Ander- 
son v. De Soer, 6 Gratt. 364; Cutts v. Perkins, 12 Mass. 209; Morton v. Nay- 
lor, 1 Hill, 583; Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15; Moore v. Davis, 67 Mich. 255. 
distinguishing the case from Grammel v. Carmer, 65 Mich. 201, where the 
draft was a " banker's draft *[ and drawn for only a part of the fund. Lewis 
v. Traders' Bank, 30 Minn. 135. But contra unless the fund be particularly 
specified.' So, also, Poole v. Carhart, 71 Iowa, 37. 



§ 16a* THE EFFECT OF A BILL OF EXCHANGE. 17 

(4) That an unaccepted order for part of a fund specified in 
it is not an assignment pro tantof^ but contrariwise (and the 
better opinion) that it is.*^ 

ea See po9t, S§ 22, 23, 23a. 

67. In Row V. Dawson, 1 Ves. 331 (1749), it appeared that A. borrowed 
money of B., and gave him a draft upon a fund due him out of the Exchequer, 
drawn on Swinburne, the Deputy of Horace Walpole, and payable, as ex< 
pressed, " out of the money due to me from Horace Walpole out of the Exche- 
quer, and which will be due at Michaelmas, pay to T. & C, value received/* 
A. afterward became bankrupt, and it was held that the draft operated in an 
equitable assignment which should prevail against the assignees in bankruptcy. 
In Lett V Morris, 4 Sim. 607, A., having engaged to pay to B. £2,360 by 
installments, B. signed and gave to C, for value, an order authorizing A. to 
pay parts of each installment to C, and £460 was to be reserved in A.'s hands 
out of the balance, and C.'s receipt was to be a discharge to A. A. was 
served with notice of the order on the day it was signed ; but there was no act 
or expression of consent. Vice-Chancellor Shadwell said: ''I entertain no 
doubt that the order amounts to an equitable assignment." In Ex parte South, 
3 Swanst. 391, the order for £417 6s., " as part of the amount due to me 
for plumber's work," etc. Held, subsequent bankruptcy of drawer did not de- 
feat it, it having been shown to the debtor. In Yates v. Groves, 1 Ves. Jr. 
281, it appeared that Dawson being indebted to Yates and Brown, upon a note, 
gave him an order on Groves and Dickinson for the amount of the note, which 
they surrendered, payable out of an amount for leasehold property. Before 
the money was paid, Dawson was thrown into bankruptcy, and Yeates and 
Brown daimed the fund pro tanto, and filed their bill to reach it. Lord Thur- 
low said: " This is nothing but a direction by a man to pay part of his money 
to another for a foregone valuable consideration. If he could transfer, he has 
done it; and it being his own money, he could transfer. The transfer was 
actually made. They were in the right not to accept, as it was not a bill of 
exchange. It is not an inchoate business. The order fixed the money the 
moment it was shown to Groves & Dickinson." Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 
M. In Brill v. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 457, there was an \inaccepted order for part 
of fond, running, " Pay B. & R. $300, and charge same to our account for labor 
and materials performed and furnished in repairs and alterations of a certain 
hoQse." It was shown that the amount was not yet due; but the order was 
held an assignment of the debt pro tanto, and that subsequent voluntary pay- 
inent to the drawer by the drawee was no defense to suit by the payee. 
Ehrichs v. De Mill, 75 N. Y. 370. Order for part of fund assented to by 
drawee, running, " Pay £. F. $400 on account of work done as per contract." 
Action by payee against drawee sustained. In Parker v. Syracuse, 31 N. Y. 
376, the order ran, " Pay P. & W. $1,420^ on plank-road and sidewalk accounts, 
and charge to my account." Held, an assignment ; and that after notice to the 
drawee he would violate equitable rights of payee by paying the amount 
to any other but the payee. In Lowery v. Steward, 25 N. Y. 241, the order 
ran "Pay to the order of A. H. L. $500 on account 24 bales cotton shipped to 
you as per bill of lading by steamer Colorado, inclosed to you in letter." Held 
to he an equitable assignment. 

Vol. 1 — 2 



18 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 17. 

(5) That a partial unaccepted order will operate as an equitable 
assignmenty although drawn upon a fund not yet in existence, or 
upon a debt not yet mature, and although the sources of pay- 
ment be precarious and uncertain.^ 

(6) That if accepted, the bill or order, whether for the whole or 
part of a fund, operates as an assignment thereof.*^ 

§ 17. Let us now consider the principles to be relied on for the 
solution of these questions ; and in the first place : as to the effect 
of a hill of exchange drawn for the entire amount of debt due by 
the drawer, or entire fund in the drawee's hands. 

By some of the authorities, as we have seen, such a bill is de- 
clared to operate as an equitable assig^ment of the fund.^^ By 
others the view is taken that the drawing of the bill is an inde- 
pendent transaction totally disassociated in legal effect from the 
funds in the drawee's hands, and does not operate as an assign- 
ment of them, but simply as an engagement of the drawer that 
the drawee shall pay to the payee a certain amount; or that in the 
event of the drawee's default the drawer will do so, the due steps 
being taken to hold him liable. Great confusion has arisen in the 
adjudicated cases from a failure to discriminate between the 
parties who may certainly claim that as to them the bill operates 
as an assignment, and those who cannot make such claim. 

In an early English case it was said: " The theory of a bill of 
exchange is that the bill is an assignment to the payee of a debt 
due from the acceptor to the drawer " -^^ and it is undoubtedly 
true that the payee has a right to suppose that the drawee has 

68. Row Y. Dawson, 1 Ves. Sr. 331. In Brooks v. Hatch, 6 Leigh, 534, the 
order was payable "out of the first money which. should be due him (the 
drawer) for salt delivered, or to be delivered, to them (the drawees)/' Held, 
equitable assignment pro tanto. See also Peyton v. Hallett, 1 Cai. 363; Cutts 
V. Perkins, 12 Mass. 206; BriU v. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 547. 

69. See post, §§ 18, 22, and notes; Risley v. Smith, 64 N. Y. 676. Held, that 
an acceptor of an order on a fund not then existing could not prevent the fund 
from accruing, and set it up as a defense; and if he does, that he may be 
sued on the order. To same effect, Gallagher v. Nichols, 60 N. Y. 438. In 
Munger v. Shannon, 61 N. Y. 251, the order was for a certain sum, with words, 
'' and deduct the same from my share of the profits, etc.," and it was held that 
its acceptance implied the condition that it was not to be paid unless there 
were profits, and that acceptor might show there were none'. Nimocks v. 
Woody, 97 N. C. 1 ; County of Des Moines v. Hinckley, 62 Iowa, 643. 

70. See ante, § 16a, and notes. 

71. Gibson v. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 569; Story on Bills, S 18; Chitty on Bills 
[•1]. 2. 



§ 18. THE EFFECT OF A BILL OF EXCHANGE. 19 

fnnds of the drawer, upon the faith of which understanding he 
receives the bill directing them to be paid to him. As between 
the drawer and payee, then we think it is clear that the bill is 
intended to operate, and does operate, as an assignment of the 
fund in the drawee's hands sufficient to meet it;^^ and if there 
be no such funds, and. no understanding that the bill will be 
honored, the drawer commits a fraud upon the payee, and will 
be absolutely bound upon the bill, without notice of dishonor. 
And if, after drawing the bill, the drawer should withdraw the 
funds in the drawee's hands, it would be likewise a fraud upon 
the payee, and the drawer would ba absolutely bound without 
notice.'^ 

% 18. Accepted bill operates as an assignment As between the 

payee and the drawee, however, there is, as generally held, no 
privity of contract, unless the drawee accepts to pay the bill. 
When he does this, he becomes absolutely bound to pay the debt 
to the holder of the bill. And any subsequent bill drawn upon 
him, or transfer or assignment of the fund in his hands, or legal 
process served upon him by a creditor of the drawer, could create 
no liability upon him to pay or deliver over the funds of the 
drawer to any one but the holder to whom he has entered into an 
obligation to pay them.^^ It has indeed been said that " a proper 
bill of exchange does not of itself operate as an assignment to the 
payee of funds of the drawer, in the hands of the drawee, and 
even after an unconditional acceptance, it cannot in strictnebs 

72. Stoiy on Bills, { 13; Chittj on Bills [*1], 2. 

73. See ante, \ 16a, and Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15; Robins v. Bacon, 3 
GreenL 349; MandevHle v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277. See Chitty on Bills ['l], 
2; Story on Bills, { 13. 

74. First Nat. Bank v. Dubuque S. R. R., 52 Iowa, 378 ; Lambert v. Jones, 2 
Ptiton k Heath, 144; Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277. In Buckner v. Sayre, 
n R Mon. 764, it appeared that the Lexington Insurance Company drew a 
bin on the 5th of August, 1861, on its agent, J. H. Wheeler, at New OrleaiiA, 
payable at six months, for $7,182. In November foUowing, the company made 
s general assignment to Buckner, as trustee, to pay its debts. And after- 
ward Wheeler, who had accepted the bill, paid over $3,000, which he had 
collected from premiums, to Buckner, the trustee. Simpson, J., said: ''Sayre,* 
M the holder of the bill of exchange, was entitled to the fund in the hands of 
the acceptor, which the latter, by his acceptance, had appropriated for his use 
and benefit." Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 117, Ruggles, J.; 2 Parsons on Notes 
and Bflls, 330, 331 ; Story on Bills, § 13. Until accepted, draft does not oper- 
ate as an assignment, legal or equitable. Erickson v. Inman, 34 Oreg. 44, .')4 
PSic. 949; Kyle v. Chattahoochee Nat. Bank, 96 Ga. 694, 24 S. E. 149. 



20 NEGOTIABLE INSTKUMENT6. § 19. 

be held to have that effect, since the drawee becomes bound by 
reason of the contract of acceptance, irrespective of the funds in 
his hands."^*^ But it has been well replied that, " the theory is, 
even in such a case, that funds to the amount of the bill have 
been assigned, and that the acceptor is estopped from setting up 
any such objection as that there were no funds to assign. "'• 

§ 19. Whether unaccepted bill for whole of fund operates as an 
assignment. — When, however, the drawee has not accepted, or 
assented to pay the amount to the holder, the rights of the parties 
are more difficult to determine. The holder (unless authorized 
by statute) cannot sue the drawee at law in his own name, for 
there is no contract on the part of the drawee to pay him.'^ But 



75. Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 X. Y. 243, Hurlbut, J. See also Wheeler 
T. Stone, 4 Gill, 47. In Marine and Fire Insurance Bank v. Jaunoey, 3 
Sandf. 258, it appeared that John Wood having 105 bales of cotton, which he 
intended to consign to Joseph Wood, drew a bill on him in favor of Walsh 
at sixty days' sight, for $3,000, which was discounted by plaintiffs, and the 
proceeds applied by John Wood to pay for the cotton above mentioned, which 
he had bought. The bill was dated July 29, 1846, and accepted by the drawee 
on July 6, 1846. The cotton was shipped to the drawee. On the 30th of June, 
Joseph Wood became insolvent, and executed an assignment of all his estate, 
including a debt due him by John Wood, the drawer, of $2,200. The cotton 
was also placed in Jauncey's hands, and its net proceeds were $2,700^ which the 
plaintiffs sought to reach by their bill in equity. The court said in respect to 
the bill of exchange, that though accepted, it was not an equitable assignment : 
and that the drawee, on receiving the funds derived from the cotton, **had 
a right to apply them to the payment of his general balance, or in any other 
w'SLy that John Wood and he might agree upon." The case was, as we think, 
rightly decided ; but we do not see that the broad doctrine declared was neces- 
sary to such decision. There was a superior equity in the drawee, which had 
])riority over the equitable assignment. It does not follow that there was Tiot 
nn equitable assignment (subject to superior equitable rights), or rather an 
equitable right to follow the proceeds of the cotton. 

76. Pickering v. Cameron, 103 Iowa, 186, 72 N. W. 447; 1 Parsons on 
Notes and Bills, 332. 

77. Tiernan v. Jackson, 5 Pet. 580; Harris v. Clark. 3 N. Y. 117, Ruggles. 
J. : " It is clearly settled that no action at law will lie in favor of the holder of 
a bill of exchange against the drawee, unless he accepts the bill." See po«f, 
§ 50, and note; New York & Va. State Bank v. Gilson, 5 Duer, 674, Duer, J.: 
" There is no such privity between him (the drawee) and the holder as can 
entitle the latter to maintain an action against him." Yates v. Bell, 3 B. & 
Aid. 643; Williams v. Everett, 14 East, 582. Holder has no action agafnst 
drawee to whom funds are remitted for money had and received. See ante, 
§ 15. And as between the drawer and the drawee, it has been held that a cot- 
ton factor, unless he has expressly or impliedly engaged to pay the drafts of 



§ 20. THE EFFECT OF A BILL OF EXCHANGE. 21 

there is force in the doctrine that he might sue the drawee in 
the name of the creditor for the amount of the debt., and offer 
the bill in evidence to show that it had been assigned to him;^*^ 
and also in the view that although the drawee would be protected 
if he parted with the funds before notice of the bill; yet if it 
were payable on demand, and after its presentment for payment, 
he sliould pay the amoimt to another, under a subsequent order, 
he would be still bound to pay it over to the holder of the fiiBt 
bill'* And after presentment to the drawee, a subsequent assign- 
ment made by tne drawer in trust for creditors, or attachment or 
garnishment process served upon the drawee, would not defeat 
the equitable claim of the holder to have the funds appropriated 
to pay the bill.** 

§20. The doctrine that an unaccepted bill for the entire 
debt or fund operates as an equitable assignment thereof is op- 
posed to the current of authority in the United States, and in 
England as well, it being considered, as already stated, that the 
bill of exchange is an independent security resting on the com- 
mercial responsibility of the parties thereto.** But it is conceded 

a customer, is not liable in damagee to the latter for refusing to pay his draft, 
eTen though the customer had in the factor's hands, funds sufficient to meet 
the same at the time it was presented; but the contrary is true, when, by 
express agreement, or by necessary implication arising from the course of 
dealings between the parties, there is an understanding or contract on the 
factor's part to pay such drafts. See Moss v. Stokeley, 95 Ga. 675, 22 S. £. 
692. 

7a See ante, 8 16a, and note ; Corser v. Craig, 1 Wash. C. C. 426. 

79. Chitty on Bills [•!]. 2, (13th Am. ed.). 

80. Wheatley t. Strobe, 12 Cal. 97. See ante, fi 16a, note; post, § 1635 
ftieq.; Roberts v. Austin, 26 Iowa, 315; Nimocks v. Woody, 97 N. C. 1; Flour 
City Nat. Bank t. Garfield, 30 Hun, 580. 

81. See Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 15. In this case the bill was 
drawn for the whole debt due the drawer by the drawee. The payee sued the 
drawee and it was held that the bill did not operate per se as an assignment, 
though connected with circumstances it might be evidence of an assignment. 
The pleadings did not aver an assignment, and were defective in that respect. 
Harrison v. Williamson, 2 Edw. Ch. 438. In Shand v. De Buisson, L. K., 
H Eq. Cas. 283 (1874), where the bill was for the exact amount of the 
fundp in the drawee's hands. Sir James Bacon, V. C, said: "It is entirely 
ner to me ti> hear that a bill of exchange in an ordinary mercantile transac- 
tion in the shape in which this appears, can amount to an equitable assign- 
ment of the debt. The note might have been indorsed to any individual, or to 
dsy namber of people, who might have indorsed it in succession. A mercantile 
instrument it is in its original, and in that shape it remains ; and has no other 



22 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 30. 

that the bill, whether for the whole of the fund or debt, or only a 
part, may be evidence to show an assignment; and that, with 
other circumstances indicating that such was the intention, will 
vest in the holder an exclusive claim to the debt or fund, and bind 
it in the hands of the drawee after notice.®* Very slight circum- 
stances in addition to the bill ought to effectuate an equitable 
assignment; and while the current of authority is undoubtedly 
otherv^ise, the tetter opinion, as it seems to us, is that a bill for 
the entire amount of a debt or fund should operate as an equi- 
table assignment thereof. The doctrine of equitable assignment 
is the creature of courts of equity, and the phrase " equitable 
assignment " is used because, by the technicalities of pleadings 
at law, no legal assignment can be effectuated.^ No assent of 
the debtor is necessary to an assignment of the debt. Notice to 
him is all that is essential to affect him with liability to respect 
the assignment, and so far does equity regard the justice of this 
principle that it is applied even where an integral debt is broken 
up into fragments. Now, then, if A. have $1,000 in the hands of 
B., and draw a bill directing B. to pay $1,000 to C, or order, on 
demand, there can be no fair inference from the transaction but 
this : that A. intended to assign the debt due to him by B. to C, 
and for the bill to stand in B.'s hands as evidence of the acquit- 
tance. It is the intention to assign that makes the assignment.^ 
And after presentment of the bill to B., which is notice, what 
sound principle of law could be violated, and what equitable 
right impaired^ by holding that an assignment is effected so as 
to bind Ite debt in equity, and bind B. to respect it — not indeed 
as a party to the bill, but as the holder of the thing assigned? So 
confident is the expectation among mercantile men that a bill 
drawn on funds will be honored, that in order to hold the drawer 
liable in the event of dishonor, he must be specially notified of 
the fact, and that the holder looks to him for payment. The 
payee of an unaccepted biU, it is true, has nothing but the 

validity or effect, and to call it an assignment of a debt would be to call it not 
by its right name." Grammel v. Carmer, 65 Mich. 201 ; Whitney v. Eliot Nat. 
Bank, 137 Mass. 351 ; Meldrum v. Henderson, 7 Colo. App. 256, 43 Pac. 148. 

82. First Nat. Bank v. Dubuque S. R. H., 52 Iowa, 378, 35 Am. Rep. 281 : 
Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 17; Bank v. Kowalsky, 106 Cal. 42, 38 Pac. 
617. 

83. First Nat. Bank y. Coates, 8 Fed. 540, Miller, J. 

84. Kahnweiler v. Anderson, 78 N. C. 137, the court saying: "The inteii- 
lion to assign operates as an equitable assignment." 



§21. THE EFFECT OF A BILL OF EXCHANGE. 23 

drawer^s direction to pay him the money to rely oil But that, 
in its very nature^ imports that (1) the drawee holds the money; 
(2) that the drawer assigns it to the payee; (3) and that if iJie 
drawee does not respect the assignment and pay the money to 
the payee, the drawer will himself pay its equivalent on being 
notified of the drawee's refusal. It is in anticipation of the 
drawee's assent that the payee is, or miay be, induced to take the 
bill; and while he cannot exact acceptance, which is a new engage- 
ment, from the drawee, that is no reason why he may not com* 
pel acquiescence^ which in nowise affects his rights or privileges. 
And it seems just and right that courts of equity and courts of 
law, in so far as their rules of procedure will permit, should carry 
out and enforce the expectation and intention of the chiefly in- 
terested parties. It is not sufficient to answer that the drawer's 
contract is independent and apart from the fact that he has, or 
has not, funds in the drawee's hands. The bill imports that he 
has. He is estopped to deny it. And while it is true he may 
he held personally bound whether he has them or not — and 
that indeed he is more rigidly held when he has no funds and 
no expectation that the bill will be honored than otherwise, be- 
cause then he has not acted in good faith; and while it is true 
that the payment of the bill is not confined to the fimds in the 
hands of the drawee — we can see no reason why, when the funds 
are actually in the drawee's hands, and he is notified of the bill 
being drawn for them, he should not be held bound to hold 
them, and apply them as his creditor has directed. If a subse- 
quent conveyance of the debt by the drawer to another by deed, 
or subsequent levy on the debt at the suit of the drawer's creditor, 
could deprive the holder of the bill of his right to pursue them by 
proper procedure, recourse against the drawer might prove of no 
ftvail; and the most righteous claim upon the fund might fail 
utterly by a mere technical ruling, which excludes the peculiar 
instruments of commerce from a basis of security freely accorded 
to others. 

§ 21. In the second place, as to an order for the whole of a fund 

It may be regarded as a settled doctrine that an order founded 
iipon a good consideration, given for a specific debt or fund owing 
by or in the hands of a third person, operates as, or rather is 
evidence of, an equitable assignment of the demand to the holder.^ 

85. Mandeyflle v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Robins v. Bacon, 3 Greenl. 346; 
Covperthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 N. Y. 243; McMenomy v. Ferrers, 3 Johns. 




24: NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 21. 

It is clearly an assignment, as between the drawer and the payee, 
because so intended.®® It is equally so as between them and the 
drawee, as soon as it is presented to him and he assents;®^ and 
whether he assents or not, the holder may in equity recover the 
debt or fund from him.^ And if the debtor be served with gar- 
nishment or other process of law after the order has been given, 
and before he has been compelled to pay the amount to another, 
the order will take precedence.®^ An order for a specific fund 
usually contains words indicating an intention to pass or appro- 
priate the whole fund, as, " Pay to A.^B., $;....., the amount 
of your collection from C. D.," or the amount received from such 
a transaction ;*^ which words, unless parenthetically inserted as a 

72; Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. IS; Anderson v. De Soer, 6 Gratt. 
364; Cutts V. Perkins, 12 Mass. 209; Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill, 583; Gibson ▼. 
Cooke, 20 Pick. 16; Parker v. City of Syracuse, 31 N. Y. 379; Harris v. 
Clark, 3 N. Y. 117. A release of a specific fund in bank operates as an equitable 
assignment. Dirimple v. State Bank of Philips, 91 Wis. 601, 65 N. W. 501. 

86. Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 583. A landlord gave an order direct- 
ing his tenant to pay W. the rents accruing during a specified period, which, on 
its presentment, he said he would do. The landlord subsequently directed the 
tenant not to pay, but the latter disregarded the notice and paid the order. It 
was held that the tenant did right, the order operating as an equitable assign- 
ment. Cowen, J., said: '* I refer to cases in chancery to show that an order for 
value is per ae an equitable assignment to the payee of the debt due from the 
drawee to the drawer. Our own rules at law as to enforcing such an assign- 
ment are well known. We give it the same effect as would a court of chan- 
cery." Gardner v. Nat. City Bank, 39 Ohio St. 604, citing the text. 

87. Legro v. Staples, 16 Me. 252; Johnson v. Thayer, 17 Me. 403; Desesse 
v. Napier, 1 McCord, 106; Peyton v. Hallet, 1 Cai. 363. See Story'a Eq. 
Jur., § 1043. 

88. Story's Eq. Jur., § 1044; Kahnweiler v. Anderson, 78 N. C. 136; Mc- 
Gahan & Co. v. Lockett, 54 S. C. 364, 32 S. E. 429, 71 Am. St. Rep. 796. 

89. Anderson v. De Soer, 6 Gratt. 364. In this case it appeared that 
a draft for $10,000, drawn by Grivegnee, a legatee, dated Malaga, 20th July, 
1819, upon the executors of his uncle, at Richmond, Va., who had left him a 
legacy of $10,000, directing that when forthcoming, and out of the funds 
destined for that object by his deceased uncle, they should pay that amount 
to the order of Messrs. Scholtz &, Brothers, for value received of them, noting 
the same as amount of legacy left him by his uncle, was held to be an assign- 
ment of the legacy, and as such to have precedence over an attachment there- 
upon served four days after the drawing of the draft, and before it was pre- 
sented. Held otherwise in contest between gamisheeing creditor of depositor 
and holder of check presented for payment after the service of writ of garnish- 
ment on bank. See Commercial Bank v. Chilberg, 14 Wash. 247, 44 Pac. 264, 
53 Am. St. Rep. 873. 

90. Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 18. 



§22. THE EFFECT OF A BILL OF EXCHANGE. 25 

mere earmark^ characterize the instrument as an unnegotiable 
order, and deprive it of its qualities as a commercial instrument. 

§ 82. In the third place and fourth place, as to a bill of exchange, 
or an order for part of a fnnd. — The doctrine is laid down with 
emphasis bj many authorities that an order^ or a bill drawn for part 
of a fund, does not operate as an assignment of that part^ or 
give a lien as against the drawee, unless he consent to the appro- 
priation by an acceptance of the draft.** And Mr. Justice Story, 
deliyering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, has 
said: '' The reason of this principle is plain. A creditor shall 
not be permitted to split up a single cause of action into many 
actions, without the consent of his debtor, since it may subject 
him to many embarrassments and responsibilities not contem- 
plated *in his original contract. He has a right to stand upon 
the singleness of his original contract, and to decline any legal 
or equitable assignments by which it may be broken into frag- 
ments. When he undertakes to pay an integral sum to his 
creditor, it is no part of his contract that he shall be obliged to 
pay .in fragments to any other persons. So that, if the plaintiff 
could show a partial assignment to the extent of the bills, it 
would not avail him in aupport of the present suit.''^ 

91. Harria t. Clark, 3 N. Y. 115, 116. Ruggles, J.* in speaking of Jus- 
tice Story's <q>inion in Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 2S6, to the effect 
that a bill of exchange is '' in theory an assignment to the payee of a debt due 
from the drawer to the drawee," says: '' This is undoubtedly true when the bill 
to been accepted, whether it be drawn on general funds, or a specific fund, 
and whether the bill be in its own nature negotiable or not; for in such case 
the acceptor, by his assent, binds and appropriates the funds for the use of 
the payee. But where an order is drawn on a general, or on a particular, fund 
for a part only, it does not amount to an assignment of that part, or give a 
lien on the drawee unless he consent to an appropriation by an acceptance 
of the draft." See Ew parte Jones, 77 Ala. 330; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. 
Councilmen, 38 Mo. 141; Rice v. Dudley, 34 Mo. 392; Grammel v. Carmer, 
55 Mich. 201; Weinetock v. Bell wood, 12 Bush, 139; Mandeville v. Welch, 
Wheat 277; Robins v. Bacon, 3 Greenl. 346; Gibson v. Finley, 4 Md. 
Ch. 75; Hopkins v. Beebee, 2 Casey, 85; Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 16; 
Poydras v. Delamere, 13 La. 98 (0. S. 1838), action against drawee; Cowper- 
thwaite v. Sheffield, 1 Sandf. 416, Vanderpool, J.: " Where an order is drawn 
for part of the fund only, it does not amount to an assignment of that part, 
or give a lien as against the drawee, unless he consent to an appropriation by 
an aooeptanoe of the draft." See cases cited contra, f 16a, notes; Bank v. 
Brewing Co., 50 Ohio St. 151, 40 Am. St. Rep. 660; Covert v. Rhodes, 48 Ohio 
St. 66, 27 N. E. 94. 

92. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277. 



26 ITEOOTIABLE INSTBUMENTS. § 23. 

§ 23. This doctrine is clearly correct in so far as it apfpHes to 
legal assignments. The holder of the bill or order cannot sue the 
drawee-atrlaw in his own name^ as he would thus divide the cause 
of action, and leave a balance due the creditor.** He cannot sue 
in the creditor's name, except by his consent, as, at best, he is only 
entitled to a part of the debt due him. But it has been held in 
numerous cases, and we think should now be regarded as law, that 
a nonnegotiable order for part of a fund operates as an equitable 
assignment pro tanto.^ Clearly this is the case when it has been 
accepted or assented to by the drawee."* And when it has not 
been accepted, our own view is this: that a nonnegotiable order 
for part of a fund does operate as an equitable assignment pro 
tanto as between the drawer and payee, because obviously so in- 
tended. But as between drawer and payee on the one side, and 
the drawee on the other, it creates no obligation on the latter to 
pay it, as he has a right to insist on an integral discharge of his 
debt And if the creditor give a subsequent order for the whole 
amount, he may pay it with impunity, as he thus discharges his 
debt in its entirety at once.®* But if the payee or indorsee goes 
into equity, or the parties are brought therein by any proceeding, 
so that all of them are before the court, the holder of the order 
may enforce it as an equitable assignment as against all subse- 
quent claimants, whether by assignment from the drawer, or by 
legal process served upon the drawee.®^ 

Mr. Justice Story has stated the principle, as we conceive it, 
more correctly in his treatise on Equity Jurisprudence than in 
the cases hitherto cited ; and he there declares that, while a draft 
for part of a fund operates no assignment at law, the same prin- 
ciple applies in equity to a draft for part of a fund that applies 
to a draft for the whole, and that " in each case a trust would be 

93. WeiDstock v. Bellwood, 12 Bush, 139. 

94. See cases cited, ante, § 16a; Yeates y. Groves, 1 Ves. Jr. 2S1 ; Bradley 
V. Root, 5 Paige Ch. 641; Lett v. Morris, 4 Sim. 607; Row v. Dawson* 1 
Ves. 331 ; Ex parte South, 3 Swanst. 391; Pope v. Huth, 14 Cal. 407; Christmas 
V. Russell, 14 Wall. 84; Knapp v. Alvord, 10 Paige, 206. 

95. Desesse v. Napier, 1 McCord, 107; Vreeland v. Blunt, 6 Barb. 182; 
Peyton v. Hallet, 1 Cai. 363; Pope v. Huth, 14 Cal. 407; Cutts v. Perkins, 
12 Mass. 206; Israel v. Douglas, 1 H. Bl. 239; Clark v. Adair, cited by Buller, 
J., in Masters v. Miller, 4 T. R. 343; Tatlock v. Harris, 3 T. R. 180 {9mnble)\ 
Ex parte Alderson, 1 Madd. 53. See ante, § 16a. 

96. 3 Lead. Cas. Eq. (3d Am. ed.) 356; Poydras v. DeUimere, 13 La. 96 
(O. S. 1838). 

97. 3 Lead. Cas. Eq. 356; Field r. Mayor of New York, 6 N. Y. 179 (1862) ; 
Pea Re T. Landauer, 63 Wis. 20, citing the test. 



§§ 2da, 24. DONATIO MOBTIS CAUSA. 37 

created in favor of the equitable assignee of the f und, and would 
constitute an equitable lien upon it." We can perceive no suffi- 
cient reason for excluding a bill for part of a fund, whether it be 
negotiable or not, from operating as an equitable assignment 
within the limitations of the text. It would only carry out to its 
legitimate sequence the theory of the bill. The doctrine of equi- 
table assignment is progressive, and we regard the refusal of 
courts to extend it to bills for parts of funds as the result of that 
ancient prejudice against commercial instruments, which Lord 
Mansfield so vigorously combated, but the traces of which yet 
remain in precedents which would be ^' more honored in the breach 
than in the observance."*® It is necessary, in order to support 
the assignment, that it should be upon a valuable consideration.^ 

§ 23a. In New York there have been numerous cases involving 
the questions under consideration, and there the doctrine obtains 
that a bill or check payable generally, does not operate an assign- 
ment of the part of the fund for which it is drawn, unless assented 
to by the drawee ;* but that an order for part of a specified fund 
then due or to become due operates as an assignment, and that the 
drawee may be compelled by action to apply the fund as directed, 
after notice of the assignment^ In that State the rules of prac- 
tice are such that the same effect is given to the partial order-at- 
law as in equity ; and hence we do not observe in the decisions of 
its courts the distinctions generally taken between legal and equi- 
table assignments.' 

SECTION IV. 

DOIITATIO MOBTIS CAUSA. 

§ 24. A gift made in contemplation of death is termed donatio 
mortis causa, an expression derived, with the law on the subject, 
from the civil law.* And the requisites to the validity of such a 
gift are: (1) That it be made with a view to the donor's death ; 

9a Story's Eq. Jur., § 1044. 99. Alger v. Scott, 64 N. Y. 14. 

1. Bank v. Brewing Co., 50 Ohio St. 151, 40 Am. St. Rep. 660; Covert v. 
Rhodes, 4S Ohio Si. 66, 27 K. E. 94. See ante, § 16o. 

8. Beardslej v. Cook, 67 Hun, 101, 22 N. Y. Supp. 36. See ante, S 16a. 

8. As to what constitutes an equitable assignment, see case of Wemple 
T. Hanenstein, 19 App. Div. 552, 46 N. Y. Supp. 288; Norton v. Naylor, 1 
Hffl,583. 

4. Gninan's Appeal, 70 Conn. 347, 39 Atl. 482, Baldwin, J., saying: ''It 
differs from a gift inter vivos in that the donee takes a present title liable to 
be divested on the recovery of the donor. If the donor dies, then the effect 
of the gift is the same as in case of a gift inter vivos,** 



28 2fEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 24. 

(2) that the donor should die of his then ailment or peril ;^ 

(3) that there be a delivery, real or symbolical, of the thing 
given,® and (4) that the gift be accepted by the donee.^ The gift 

5. It seems, however, that such gift will not be invalidated because the death 
results from a cause not immediately the one anticipated. Thus where a gift 
was made in anticipation of a fatal result from a surgical operation, and death 
occurred three days after the operation, but not as a result thereof, it 
was held that the gift was not thereby invalidated. Ridden v. ThraU, 55 
Hun, 185, 7 N. Y. Supp. 822. To sustain such a gift, it must be made under 
apprehension of death from some present disease, or other impending peril, and 
it becomes void by a recovery from the disease or escape from the peril. It 
is not necessary that it should be made in extremis, and when there is not 
time or opportunity to make a will — in order to render the gift effectual 
it is not necessary that the donor should die from the apprehended dis- 
ease — it is sufficient if, and befcnre his recovery from that disease, he died 
from some other disease existing at the time. See Ridden v. Thrall, 125 
N. Y. 572, 26 N. E. 627, 21 Am. St. Rep. 758. See also the case of Board of 
Missions v. Mechanics' Savings Bank, 40 App. Div. 120, 54 N. Y. Supp. 28, 
57 N. Y. Supp. 582. 

6. Dickshied v. Exchange Bank, 28 W. Va. 340; McCord v. McCord, 77 Mo. 
166. Delivery to a third person for the donee is sufficient. Woodburn v. 
Woodburn, 123 111. 619; Dunbar v. Dunbar, 80 Me. 154; Hatch v. Atkinson, 
56 Me. 324; Daniel v. Smith, 75 Cal. 548; Waynesburg College Appeal, 111 
Pa. St. 130; Gano v. Fisk, 43 Ohio St. 462; Burton v. Bridgeport, 52 Conn. 
398; Curtis v. Portland Bank, 77 Me. 151; Newton v. Snyder, 44 Ark. 42; 
Stephenson v. King, 81 Ky. 426; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421. In the 
case of Ridden v. Thrall, supra, held, that any delivery of property which 
transfers either the legal or equitable title is sufficient to effectuate the gift. 
The words of donor, referring to gift of deposit in bank, ** 1 think I am 
going to die, take these books (referring to pass-books), bury me out of 
them and what is left out of it, is yours," do not limit or place a condition 
upon the gift, but simply impose upon the donee a trust duty to pay the 
expenses of the donor's funeral, and in connection with other evidence, is 
sufficient to establish a valid gift causa mwiis of the deposit. Podmore v. 
South Brooklyn Savings Institution, 48 App. Div. 218, 62 N. Y. Supp. 961, and 
cases there cited. And such a gift is not invalidated by the fact that it is 
accompanied with a direction to the donee, to divide the balance of the 
money after the payment of the donor's doctor's bill and funeral expenses, 
between himself and others named by the donor. See Loucks v. Johnson, 
70 Hun, 565, 24 N. Y. Supp. 267. The same principle of law as to delivery 
is equally applicable to gifts inter vivos, and it has been held t^iat if the ^ 
gift be from father to son, and the son has no general or testamentary 
guardian, the possession of the pass-book by the father, as the guardian by 
nature of the child, does not destroy the gift, by reason of nondelivery of 
the pass-book to the child. See Beaver v. Beaver, 62 Hun, 194, 16 N. Y. 
Supp. 476, 746; Jones v. Weakley, 99 Ala. 441, 12 So. 420, 42 Am. St. Rep. 
84, 8 S. E. 721. See Yancy v. Field, 85 Va. 759: Thomas v. Lewis, 89 Va. 
1, 15 S. E. 389, 37 Am. St. Rep. 848. 

7. See 22 Moak's Eng. Rep. 687-688, and cases cited. Where a mother on 



§ 24. DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA. 29 

must take effect in the lifetime of the donor, for otherwise it would 
be available only, if at all, as a testamentary disposition. It must 
take effect during the life of the donor as an executed and com- 
plete transfer of the thing, although the right of the donee is sub- 
ject to be divested by actual revocation of the donor, by his sur- 
vival of apprehended peril, by his outliving the donee, or by the 
insufficiency of his estate to pay his debts.* As to the character 
of the article which may be the subject of such a quasi-testament- 
ary disposition, the common law has undergone considerable 
change. Originally, it was limited to chattels which might be 
delivered by the hand ; and the rule was relaxed slowly and some- 
what reluctantly bv the courts, under the apprehension that fraud 
uiwn persons in d^ng condition might be encouraged by its exten- 
sion. Bank notes were next embraced, with lottery tickets, and 
securities transferable by delivery, such as notes payable to bearer* 
or to order, and indorsed in blank, while notes not so payable were 
excluded.*** Subsequently it was extended to bonds,** and the 
later cases hold that the note of a third party not negotiable, or 
if nei!;otiable, not indorsed, but delivered, passes by such a dona- 
tion, with a right to use the name of the personal representative 
of the promisee, to collect it for the donee's own use, the equitable 

her death-bed delirered a note for her daughter to another, whom the daugh- 
ter had designated as her agent to receive it, under circumstances indicating 
the intention to i^ake a gift either inter vivos or mortis causa, the deUvery 
vas sufficient to pass title to the note, and it will be presumed that it was 
Rpccpted. Ammon v. Martin, 59 Ark. 191, 26 S. W. 826. But this principle 
i» held to apply only to savings banks. Jones v. Weakley, 99 Ala. 441, 12 
So. 420, 42 Am. St. Rep. 84. 

8. Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. S. 609; Gass v. Simpson, 4 Coldw. 288; Parcher 
T. Saco Bkg. & Sav. Inst., 78 Me. 470; Nutt v. Morse, 142 Mass. 3; Walsh's 
Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 177; Kiflf v. Weaver, 94 N. C. 274; Connor v. Root. 11 
Colo. 183; Daniel v. Smith, 76 Cal. 648; Seybold v. Nat. Bank, 6 N. Dak. 460, 
67 X. W. 682; Plasterstein v. Hoes, 37 App. Div. 421, 56 N. Y. Supp. 103: 
Oammon Theological Seminary v. Robbins, 128 Ind. 85, 27 N. E. 341. The 
*ame principle applies to a gift inter vivos. Zeller v. Jordan, 105 Cal. 43, 38 
Pac. 640. 

9. Miller v. Miller, 3 P. Wms. 356, in which case it was held that bank notes 
passed, but a note payable to the donor's order did not. Chitty on Bills 
(13th Am. ed.), 3. 

10. See Chase v. Redding. 13 Gray, 420. 

11. Snellgrave v. Bailey, 3 Atk. 214; Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sr. 431; Duf- 
field V. Elwes, 1 Bligh, 409, in which case a bond with mortgage deeds deliv- 
ered to the donee was held to create a trust in his favor. Ley son v. Davis 
<•' nL 17 Mont. 220, 42 Pac. 775. 



30 NEGOTIABLE INSTEUMENTS. § 24:0. 

title paaeing to him.^^ In further extension of the principle, it 
has been held that, even if the donor indorse a bill or note of a 
third person as donatio mortis causa, the donation will be valid, 
although the estate of the indorser will not be bound upon his 
indorsement, as it is without consideration. And this seems to 
us at once a just extension and limitation of the principle.^' This 
doctrine obtains in Scotland, where it has been decided in several 
cases;** and it has been carried even further in England, where 
it has been held that bills delivered on death-bed, but without con- 
sideration, were valid gifts, and authorized the donees, in the first 
place, to force the donor's executors to indorse the bills,' and, in 
the next place, to recover from the, acceptors, the indorsation being 
r^arded as a mere technicality.*^ In Louisiana, where, on the 
day before he died, plaintiff's testator delivered to defendant the 
check of another, payable to and indorsed by him in blank, and 
it was not presented until after the donor's death, it was held a 
valid gift causa mortis}^ 

§ 24a. Beposits in bank may be the subject of a donatio martis 
oansa, and the doctrine obtains in the United States that the deliv- 
ery of a bank-book containing entries of deposits in bank with the 

18. Chase v. Redding, 13 Qray, 418, in which case it was held that a gift 
mortis causa of promissory notes, secured by mortgages, with assignments 
of the mortgages, was valid. Grover v. Grover, 24 Pick. 264; Sessions v. 
Moseley, 4 Cush. 87; Turpin v. Thompson, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 420; Jones v. 
Deyer, 16 Ala. 221; Borneman v. Sidlinger, 15 Me. 429; Brown v. Brown, 18 
Conn. 410; McConnell v. McConnell, 11 Vt. 290; Parker v. Marston, 27 Me. 
196; Tillinghast v. WheaAon, 8 R. I. 536; Veal v. Veal, 29 L. J. Ch. 321, 
27 Beav. 303; Rankin v. Weguelin, 27 Beav. 309; Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Hun, 
472; Druke v. Heiken, 61 Cal. 346, 44 Am. Rep. 553; Byles on Bills 
(Sharswood's ed.), 295-296; Thompson on Bills, 20, 21; Redfield on Wills, 
312, 313. Contra, Bradley v. Hunt, 6 Gill & J. 54, in which case it is limited 
to bank notes and notes payable to bearer. 

13. Weston v. Hight, 17 Me. 287. 

14. Thompson on Bills, 20. In one case, where a person had indorsed a bill 
for 1,000 marks to his grandson, then under age, and put it thus indorsed, 
but without particular instructions, into the hands of his son and general 
disponee (distributee), the court, in an action for delivery brought by the 
grandson, decerned (decreed) in his favor. In a later case, where the holder 
of two promissory notes indorsed them on his death-bed, and delivered them 
to a person, telling him to deliver one to a servant, as a reward for services, 
and the other to certain parties, as a mark of gratitude for past favors, the 
court sustained the right of the donees to sue the makers. 

15. Veal V. Veal, 29 L. J. Ch. 321, 27 Beav. 303; Rankin v. Weguelin, 27 
Beav. 309. 

16. Burke v. Bishop, 27 La. Ann. 465 (1875), 27 Am. Rep. 567. 



§ 24a. DONATIO MOBTIS CAUSA. 31 

intent to make the deposits a gift, by a person in contemplation 
of death, to the donee, constitutes a valid gift of the money 
deposited." Delivery of the bank-book of the depositor is all the 
delivery of which the subject is capable.*® A certificate of deposit 
may also be the subject of a valid gift caiLsa mortis, but it must 
be indorsed and delivered to the dense so as to vest in him com- 
plete title, or so delivered without indorsement as to create an 
equitable assignment of the fund it represents, divesting the donor 
of all control and dominion over it*^ In a number of cases it has 
been held that where a person deposits a sum in bank in his own 
name as trustee for another, and recognizes it as his, a complete 
and irrevocable gift is effected to the cestui que trusty and if the 

17. HUl Y. Stevenson, 63 Me. 364; Drew v. Hagerty, 81 Me. 243; Camp*8 
Appeal, 36 Conn. 88, 4 Am. Rep. 39; Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512; Ray v. 
Simmons, 11 R. I. 266; Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134; Millspaugh v. Putnam, 
11 Abb. Pr. 380; Tillinghast v. Wheaton, 8 R. I. 536, Durfee, J., saying: " It 
is true we find no case which is the exact parallel of the case before us, but 
the principle declared in the cases to which we have referred is broad enough 
to include the case before us; and therefore whatever, as a matter of wise 
policy, we may think of the expediency of holding a savings bank book to be 
the subject of a gift mortis causae we do not see how, as a matter of law, we 
can hold otherwise." Deposits in bank can likewise be the subject of a gift 
later vivos, 1^ Guinan's Appeal from Probate, 70 Conn. 342; Buckingham's 
Appeal from Probate, 60 Conn. 143; Scrivens v. North Easton Savings Bank, 
166 Mass. 265, 44 N. E. 251 ; Crawford v. McCarthy, 169 N. Y. 614, 64 N. E. 
277; PoUey v. Hicks, 58 Ohio St. 218, 60 N. E. 809; Thomas v. Lewis, 89 Va. 1, 
15 S. E. 389, 37 Am. St. Rep. 848, 50 N. E. 809. To establish such a gift the 
evidence must be of the clearest and most satisfactory character, ^ee Citizens' 
Savings Bank v. MitcheU, 18 R. I. 739, 30 Atl. 626. Contra, McConnell v. 
Murray, 3 Ir. L. J. 668. 

la Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134; Whalen v. MUholland, 89 Md. 199, 43 
AtL45. 

19. Basket v. Hassell, 107 U. 8. 613; Amis v. Witt, 33 Beav. 619; Moore 
V. Moore, L. R., 18 Eq. 474; Hewitt v. Kaye, L. R., 6 Eq. 198; Westerlo v. 
Dcwitt, 36 N. Y. 340; Emery v. Clough, 63 N. H. 552; Leyson v. Davis et oX., 
17 Mont. 220, 42 Pac. 776; Telford v. Patton, 144 HI. 611, quoting text, 33 
X. E. 1119. 

20. Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134; Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512. See cases 
dted in Cent. L. J. for Jan. 6, 1882, vol. 14, p. 17, and Willis v. Smyth, 
S. C. of N. Y., Dec. 19, 1881, Cent. L. J.. Feb. 3, 1882, p. 97. But the char- 
acter of such transaction is not conclusively established by the mere fact 
of the deposits in the savings bank so as to preclude evidence of contem- 
poraneous facts and circumstances, constituting the res gestcs to show that 
the real motive of the depositor was not to create a trust but to accomplish 
•ome independent and different purpose inconsistent with an intention to 
divest himself of the beneficial, ownership of the fund. Maoey v. Williams, 
83 Hun, 243, 31 X. Y. Supp. 620. And subsequent acts or declarations of the 



32 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 246. 

trustee withdraw the amount his personal representative will be 
liable for it.^^ The courts adopting these views rest them upon 
the grounds: that by entering the deposit to the credit of the 
dej)ositor as trustee for another, a plain declaration of trust is 
made; accompanied by a formal transfer of the money which is 
the subject-matter to himself as trustee, that thereby the title 
passes; and that retention of the pass-book by the self-constituted 
trustee is not inconsistent with the intention to give the deposit 
to the cestui que trust, because the legal title remains in the trus- 
tee, although the beneficial interest has been transferred ; that the 
pass-book is not the property, but only the voucher for it;** and 
that the trust is valid, although unkno\^Ti to the beneficiary.** If 
the trust so declared rests upon a legal obligation,** and probably 
if upon a moral obligation,*^ it should be supported, and it is not 
needful to the validity of the trust that notice be given to the 
beneficiary.*^ The intention of the trustee to pass the title must 
be clearly manifested, and if shown not to have existed, it would 
be defeated.*' A number of the cases turn rather upon the prin- 
ciples that control voluntary settlements than upon the peculiar 
doctrines of donatio mortis causa. But where the declaration of 
the trust is plainly made, as by an entry in a pass-book to the 
credit of the depositor as trustee for another, and it is shown to 
have been the depositor's intention that at his death the depositor 
should take the deposit, then, as it seems to us, it should be sup- 
ported as a valid donatio mortis causa. 

§ 24b. Delivery to the donee, or some other person for him, is 
requisite to a valid donatio mortis causal as it is to gifts inter 

depositor not connected with the deposit so as to constitute res gestw will 
not avail to defeat the trust. See Hyde v. Kitchen, 69 Hun, 2S0, 23 N. Y. 
Supp. 573; Mize v. National Bank, 60 Mo. App. 358; Sayre v. Weil, 94 Ala. 
466, 10 So. 546. 

21. Milholland v. Whalen, 89 Md. 212; Minor v. Kogers, 40 Conn. 512. 

22. Milholland v. Whalen, 89 Md. 212, 43 Am. St. Kep. 45; Martin v. Funk, 
75 N. Y. 134, Church, C. J. 

23. Ray v. Simmons, 11 R. I. 266, 23 Am. Rep. 266; Martin v. Funk, 75 
N. Y. 134. 

24. Brabrook v. Boston, etc., Sav. Bank, 104 Mass. 228. 

25. Brabrook v. Boston, etc., Sav. Bank, 104 Mass. 228. 

26. Brabrook v. Boston, etc., Sav. Bank, 104 Mass. 228. 

27. Clark v. Clark, 108 Mass. 228; Met. Sav. Bank v. Murphy, 82 Md. 
314, 33 Atl. 640, 51 Am. St. Rep. 473; Sav. Bank v. McCarthy, 89 Md. 194, 
42 Atl. 929. 

28. Hill v. Stevenson, 63 Me. 364; Dole v. Lincoln, 31 Me. 422; Wells v. 
Tucker, 3 Binn. 366; Dunbar v. Dunbar, 80 Me. 154; Hatch v. Atkinson, 56 



§ 25. DONATIO MOBTIS CAUSA. 38 

vivos^ but delivery may be symbolically or constructively made.**^ 
And when the depositor causes the sum in bank to be credited 
to himself as trustee for another, it is deemed a sufBcient delivery^ 
as we have already seen.** 

§ 25. Donee's own note. — The donee's own note may be made 
a gift mortis causa, and its destruction by the donor, with intent 
that it be extinguished and released in the event of his death, 
would suffice to effect it*^ Strict proof of the gift donatio 
mortis causa is requisite. A mere declaration of a gift alone is 
insufficient,^ and the evidence should be closely scrutinized.** 
But the gift of the donor's own note as donatio mortis causa would 
not be valid, as his representatives might prove that it was with- 
out consideration f^ and so the draft of the donor on a third per- 

Me. 324; Whalen v. MnhoUand, 80 Md. 199, 43 Atl. 45; McMahon v. Newton 
Say. Bank, 67 Conn. 80, 34 Atl. 700; Jennings v. NeviUe, 180 111. 270, 54 
N. E. 202. 

29. Spocner v. Hilfish, 92 Va. 334, 23 S. E. 751 ; Ewing v. Ewing, 2 Leigh, 
343; Miller y. Jeffresa, 4 Gratt. 479; Lee y. Boak, 11 Gratt. 185. 

80. See po9t, 9§ 63, 67; Burney v. Ball, 24 Ga. 565; Darland y. Taylor, 52 
Iowa, 503; Stephenson y. King, 81 Ky. 425. 

31. The cases on this subject are too numerous, and their refinements too 
various and subtle, to admit of amplification in this work. Discussion of the 
rabjeet may be found in Cent. L. J., Jan. 6, 1882, yol. 14, pp. 16, 18, 31 Am. 
Rep. 453, 26 Am. Hep. 684, and in following cases: Gerrish y. New Bedford 
Institution for Sayings, 128 Mass. 159; Brabrook y. Boston, etc.. Bank, 104 
Maw. 228; Clark y. Clark, 108 Mass. 522; Powers y. Proyident Ins. Co., 124 
Mass. 377; Stone y. Bishop, 4 Cliff. (U. S. C. C.) 593; Blasdell y. Locke, 52 
X. H. 238; Howard y. Windham Bank, 40 Vt. 597; Kerrigan y. Rantigan, 43 
Conn. 17. 

88. Darland v. Taylor, 52 Iowa, 503. In this case a lady holding her grand- 
son's notes destroyed them, stating that she did not expect to liye long, and 
in case of her death did not desire that he may be compelled to pay them. 
Held a yalid donatio mortis causa. To same effect, see (Gardner y. Gardner, 
22 Wend. 525. 

38. Yancy v. Field, 85 Va. 761, 8 S. E. 721. 

34. Smith y. Smithy 92 Va. 696, 24 S. E. 280. 

85. Basket y. Hassell, 107 U. 8. 612; Harris y. Clark, 3 N. Y. 93 (oyerruling 
Wright y. Wright, 1 Cow. 598); Baymond y. Sellick, 10 Conn. 480; Parish 
T. Stone, 14 Pick. 198; Warren y. Durfee, 126 Mass. 338; Irish y. Nutting, 
47 Barb. 370; HoUey y. Adams, 16 Vt. 206. In Hamer y. Moore, 6 Ohio St. 
239, the note ran: "For yalue receiyed, I promise to pay to Mrs. Hamer, 
wife of John Hamer, the sum of $300, as a small recompense for the kindness 
shown to me by her. The executors of my last will and testament are hereby 
directed to pay the aboye to Mrs. H. or her sons, Moses and John, after my 
^^ccease." Signed and attested. It was held inyalid as a gift causa mortis. 

Vol. 1 — 3 



34 NEOOTIABLS INSTBUMENTS. § 26. 

son who holds his funds it has been held is not an assignment 
thereof until accepted, and is not a valid mortuary gift.'^ The 
theory of the law is to throw the salutary checks which are found 
in the formal execution of wills around those who are associated 
with the donor in his dying condition; and to hold these dis- 
positions valid would, in effect, dispense with the guards against 
fraud and imposition which are found in the rules which govern 
the authentication and probate of last testaments. " The very 
circumstance," as has been said, " which sometimes renders a will 
suspicious, is the living principle in a donatio mortis causa." ^ 
But it would seem that the payee even of an undelivered bill 
could recover, in England, if it were attested in terms of the Wills 
Act.^ 

§ 26. Whether donor's check is valid donatio mortis oansa — If 

a check of the donor be delivered to the donee as donatio mortis 
causa, ana the donee transfers it for a present valuable considera- 
tion, or in discharge of a debt, or if it be paid by the bank before 
it is apprised of the drawer's death, it seems to be conceded by the 
authorities that no court should or would take it from the donee, 
and that the gift would be sustained as a valid donatio mortis 
causa.^ But where none of these circumstances exist the gift is 
regarded as incomplete and invalid, the check being considered a 
mandate revoked by death, and the bank not being justified in 
paying it, if it is apprised of the drawer's death.*^ The better 

In Helfenstein's Estate, 77 Pa. St. 328, H. made his note for the sum of $4,000, 
payable one year after date, to Treasurer of Theological Seminary, and de- 
livered it to the chairman of the seminary library committee; subjoined to 
it was a statement that it was a donation, the interest of which was to be 
applied to the purchase of books for the seminary. Shortly afterward the 
maker died. Held, that the note, being without consideration, and not having 
been accepted by the trustees before the maker's death, was revoked thereby, 
and a subsequent acceptance of it was ineffective. Tracy v. Alvord, 118 Cal. 
654, 50 Pac. 757, citing text. 

36. Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 03; Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76 (overruling 
Wright V. Wright, 1 Cow. 598) ; Billing v. Devaux, 3 Man. & Gr. 665. See 
Bayley on Bills, 348, intimating the contrary. See Lawson v. Lawson, 1 
P. Wms. 441, and post, § 26. 

37. Holley v. Adams, 16 Vt. 206. 

38. Gough V. Findon, 7 Exch. 48. 

39. Tate v. Hilbert, 2 Ves. Jr. 118, 4 Bro. C. C. 291; Rolls v. Pearce, 6 Ch. 
Div. 730 (1877), 22 Moak's Eng. Rep. 432. See § 1618a, post; Dinley v. Me- 
Cullagh, 92 Hun, 454, 36 N. Y. Supp. 1007. 

40. Ibid.; Burke v. Bishop, 27 La. Ann. 465; Matter of Smither, 30 



§ 26. DONATIO MOBTIS CAUSA. 35 

opinion, as we think, is that the bank would be justified in pay- 
ing, unless in addition to knowing that the drawer was dead, it 
also knew that the check was a mere gift ;*^ and even if it knew 
the latter fact we do not think that should change its right to pay. 
It is observed by Vice-Chancellor Malins that the law on the ques- 
tion considered here " seems to be in a very curious state," and 
that *' the result of the authorities appears to be that a gift of a 
bill of exchange, which is by its very nature payable at a future 
day, may be a good donatio mortis causa, but the gift of a check 
is not valid unless it is presented for payment, or paid before the 
death of the donor," and in respect to the case then under adju- 
dication he expressed his opinion to be, that " when a man gives 
his wife a check it is in substance as complete a gift as if he had 
handed her the cash." ^ 

Where a bill was drawn by the donor, in his last illness, on a 
goldsmith, to enable his wife to purchase mourning, it was held 
in an eariy case that it was valid as donatio mortis causa, and 
would operate like a direction of the testator touching his funeral, 
which ought to be observed though not in his will;*® and, as said 
by the vice-chancellor in the case already cited, we " can see no 
reason why, if a bill drawn on a goldsmith would be a valid 

Htm, 632. In Basket v. HasseU, 107 U. S. 615, Matthews, J., says of 
a eheck that^ " as shown by all the authorities, and upon the nature 
of the case it cannot be valid as a donatio mortis causa, even when it is payable 
in pr(B9entiy unless paid or accepted while the donor is alive; how much less 
w when, as in the present case, it is made payable only upon his death." But 
"all the authorities" do not sustain this view. In Simmons v. Savings So- 
ciety, 31 Ohio St. 530, the bank was notified after drawer's death not to pay, 
and did not pay the check. Held, that check was revoked by drawer's death, 
and payee could not recover of his estate. In Thrasher v. Dyer, 69 Conn. 411, 
37 AtL 979, Hammersly, J., says: " Gift is not completed by mere delivery 
of a check, which remains unacted on in the hands of the payee." See post, 
f 16186; McNamara v. McDonald, 69 Conn. 486, 38 Atl. 54, 61 Am. St. Rep. 
48; Zeller v. Jordan, 105 Gal. 43, 38 Pac. 640. 

41. See post, $ 1618a, and notes. 

42. Rollfl V. Pearce, 5 Ch. Div. H. C. J., 730 (1877), 22 Moak's Eng. Rep. 
436. At variance with the propositions stated in the text is the case of 
Matter of James, 78 Hun, 128, 28 N. Y. Supp. 992, which holds that checks 
gi^en by a person, when dying, to his wife, named in his will as executrix, in 
the abseoce of any evidence explaining why such checks were given, or the 
purpose for which they were received and used, must, upon her accounting 
as executrix, be treated as a part of the testator's estate, and be accounted 
for by her. (Dykman, J., dissenting.) 

48. LawBon v. Lawson, 1 P. Wms. 440 (1718). 



36 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 26a. 

donatio mortis caiLsa, a check should not be so too.** It is clear that 
no donatio mortis causa can prevail against the creditors of the 
donor when his assets would be otherwise insufficient to satisfy 
their claims,**^ nor unless delivered;*^ but when no such question 
arises^ we see no reason why a check should not be supported as a 
valid disposition — as checks are generally r^arded as the equiva- 
lent of cash. And consistently with the general principles that 
prevail as to donationes mortis caiisa, the rule should be that bills 
or checks should be supported as such as to all parties, except in 
so far as to authorize suit against the decedent's estate. Being 
executory contracts as to the decedent and his estate, they are 
without consideration, and might be defended on that ground; 
but as to the drawees and other parties they should be upheld.*^ 

§ 26a. The validity of a gift oatua mortis is to be determined by 
the law of the place where it was made, without r^ard to the 
domicile of the donor.*® 

44. Rolls y. Pearce, 5 Ch. Div. 730, 22 Moak's Eng. Rep. 432. 
46. Chase y. Redding, 7 Gray, 418. 

46. Ward y. Turner, 2 Yes. Sr. 431. See {Southern Law Review for April. 
1876, p. 145, and ante, 9 24. 

47. See ante, 9 24. 48. Emery y. Qough, 03 N. H. 562. 



CHAPTER IL 

DEFINmON AND BSSBNTIAL REQUISITES OP BILLS AND NOTBS. 

§27. A bill of exchange is an open letter addressed by one 
person to a second, directing him, in effect, to pay absolutely, and 
at all events, a certain sum of money therein named, to a third 
person or to any other to whom that third person may order it to 
be paid; or it may be payable to bearer or to the drawer himself.^ 

Abram, who draws the bill, is called the drawer; Benjamin, 
to whom it is directed, is called the drawee, and upon accepting 
it, becomes the acceptor. Charles, to whom the bill is made pay- 
able, is called the payee. 

If the bill be payable to " Charles onZi/," it is not negotiable; 
but if payable to " Charles or order," he may, by indorsing it, 
direct that it be paid to David, and in that case Charles becomes 
the indorser, and David the indorsee. 

1. The definitions of bills and notes are given as follows by various writers. 
Blackstone defines a bill of exchange to be " an open letter of request from 
one man to another, desiring him to pay a sum of money therein named to a 
third person on his account." 2 Bl. Com. 466. Bayley says: "A bill of ex- 
change is a written order or request, and a promissory note a written promise, 
for the payment of money absolutely and at all events." Bayley on Bills, 1. 
Chitty follows Blackstone, and Chancellor Kent follows Bayley. Chitty on 
Bills, 1, 3 Kent's Com. 74. Byles says: "A bill of exchange is an uncondi- 
tional written order from A. to B., directing B. to pay C. a sum of money 
therein named." Byles (Sharswood's ed.), 1. And that "A promissory note, 
or, as it is frequently called, a note of hand, is an absolute promise in writing, 
signed, but not sealed, to pay a specified sum at a time therein limited, or on 
demand, or at sight, to a person therein named or designated, or to his order, 
or to the bearer." Byles (Sharswood's ed.) [*5]. In Story on Bills the defini- 
tion of a bill given by Bayley is commended as concise, clear, and accurate. 
The learned author adds however: *' But here again its peculiar distinguishing 
quality in modem times, its negotiability, is omitted, which, although not 
by oar law essential to the instrument, is still that which, practically speak- 
ing, among merchants, constitutes its true character." Mr. Kyd has accord- 
ingly given the more extended definition, stating it to be " an open letter of 
request, addressed by one person to a second, desiring him to pay a sum of 
money to a third, or to any other, to whom that third person shall order it 
to be paid; or it may be payable to bearer." See Kyd on Bills, 3, and Story 
on Bills, I 3. Tiedemann says: " A bill of exchange is an unconditional writ- 
ten order by one person on another, directing him to pay to a third person^ 

[371 



38 REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 28. 

§ 28. Befinition of promissory note. — A promissory note or note 
of hand, as it is often called, is an open promise in writing by one 
person to pay another person therein named, or to his order, or 
to bearer^ a specified sum of money absolutely and at all events.* 
Abram, who makes the note, is called the maker; Benjamin, to 
whom the promise is made to pay, the payee; and if the note is 
transferred from Benjamin to Charles by indorsement, they are 
termed respectively indorser and indorsee. If the transfer from 
Benjamin to Charles be by delivery merely, they are termed re- 
spectively assignor and assignee. 

or to his order, or to the bearer the sum of money therein named." Tiede- 
mann on Commercial Paper, § 2. In Randolph on Commercial Paper, § 3, 
it is said: "A Bill of Exchange is an unconditional order for the payment of 
a certain sum of money by the person addressed in it to the person in whose 
favor it is drawn." In Story on Promissory Notes it is said: "A promissory 
note may be defined to be a written engagement by one person to pay 
another person, therein named, absolutely and unconditionally, a certain sum 
of money at a time specified therein." Story on Notes, § 1. Without adopting 
the precise language of any author, we have given herein definitions which 
seem to us more accurate than some others, and which, at least, cannot be 
misleading. Allen v. Leavens, 26 Oreg. 169, 37 Pac. 488, 46 Am. St. Rep. 613, 
citing text. Court held that a promise to accept the order of another with 
such other's name indorsed thereon is in no sense a bill of exchange. Thi.s 
case is reported in 26 L. R. A., with a useful note collecting the authori- 
ties on the validity of parol promises to accept orders or bills of exchange, 
(a) where the orders or bills have been drawn, and (b) where the orders 
or bills have not been drawn. Culbertson v. Nelson, 93 Iowa, 187, 61 N. W. 
854, 57 Am. St. Rep. 266, quoting with approval the texit; Chamberlain v. 
Young (1893), 2 Q. B. 206. 

2. New York Security & Trust Co. v. Storm, 81 Hun, 33, 30 N. Y. Supp. 
605; Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N. Y. 462. In this case it was held that a written 
statement signed by the maker to the effect that a certain amount is due a 
person named, implies that the money is due from the maker and is an in- 
debtedness from him to the person named. The acknowledgment of the 
indebtedness, and that it is due implies a promise to pay it on demand, in the 
absence of other direction as to tinie of payment. Such an instrument is a 
promissory note, and as such imports a consideration by its terms. The 
instrument in question above defined was in the following form: 
"$1976 90-100 Brooklyn, Feb. 8th, 1871. 

"One year after my death I hereby direct my executor to pay to Joseph 
Hegeman, his heirs, executors or assignees, the sum of nineteen hundred and 
seventy six dollars, and ninety cents, being the balance due him for cash 
advanced at various times by him to Adrian Hegeman my son, and others, 
as per statement rendered by him this day, without interest. 

CORNELIA W. HEGEMAN." 

First Nat. Bank of Farmersville v. Greenville Bank, 84 Tex. 40, 19 S. W. 
334, quoting text; Dobbins v. Oberman, 17 Nebr. 165, citing the text. 



§§ 29-31. THE PAPEB MUST BE OPENED. 39 

The maker of a note is sometimes termed the drawer, and in 
accommodation indorsements the indorser frequently writes over 
his name: " Credit drawer." When the term "drawer" is so 
used, the maker is of course meant, though not accurately de- 
scribed. 

" Holder " is a general word applied to any one in actual or 
constructive possession of the bill or note, and entitled at law to 
recover or receive its contents from the parties to it. 

§29. Difference between bills and notes — In their original 
structure, a bill of exchange and promissory note do not strongly 
resemble each other. In a bill there are three original parties: 
drawer, drawee, and payee; in a note only two: maker and payee. 
In a bill the acceptor is tbe primary debtor. In a note tbe 
maker is the only debtor. But if the note be transferred to a 
third party by the payee, it becomes strikingly similar to a bill. 
The indorser becomes then, as it were, the drawer, the maker the 
acceptor, and the indorsee the payee.^ The reader, bearing this 
similitude in mind, will easily be able to apply to notes the de- 
cisions hereinafter cited concerning bills, and vice versa. 

§ 30. In order to fulfill the definition given, the paper must 
carry its full history upon its face, and embrace the following 
requisites: First. It must be open, that is, unsealed. Second. 
The engagement to pay must be certain. Third. The fact of 
payment must be certain. Fourth. The amount to be paid must 
be certain. Fifth. The medium of payment must be money. 
Sixth. The contract must be only for the' payment of money. 
And Seventh. It is also essential to the operation of the instru- 
ment that it should be delivered. 

SECTION I. 

THE PAPER MUST BE OPEN, THAT IS, UNSEALED. 

§ 31. The first requisite of a bill is, that it shall be an " open 
letter " of direction — and of a note, that it shall be an open 
promise — for the payment of money. By the term " open " is 
meant " unsealed " ; and though the instrument possess all the 
other requisites of a bill or note, its character as a commercial 
instrument is destroyed, and it becomes a covenant, governed by 

3. Penniman v. Alexander, 111 N. C. 427, 16 S. E. 408, citing text. 



40 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 32. 

the rules affecting common-law securities, if it be sealed.^ Thus 
in Delaware, where a draft in the form of a bill was drawn by a 
corporation which attached its corporate seal, it was held not to 
be a bill of exchange, and to be incapable of indorsement as such 
by the law merchant.*^ It has been held however that the affix- 
ing of a seal to a bill is a mere superfluity, and does not inter- 
fere with its validity or transferability;® but the doctrine of the 
text is supported by the highest authority. 

§ 32. Seals to notes. — In respect to promissory notes, the same 
rules prevail. If a seal be affixed to a paper in the ordinary form 
of a note, its character as such is destroyed; and it is thereby 
converted into the deed or bond of the maker, who is then termed 
the obligor, and the instrument is not subject to the peculiar 
doctrines that are applicable to mercantile securities.^ And this 
rule applies to corporations as well as to individuals.® It appears 

4. Edwards on BUls, 208, 210; Chitty on BiUs (13th Am. ed.) [•166], 190; 
Story on Bills, § 62; Story on Notes, § 56; Nicely et al, v. The Winnebago 
Nat. Bank of Rockford, 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text. 

6. Conine v. Junction & B. R. Co., 3 Houst. 289, Gilpin, C. J., saying: 
" Deeds or sealed instruments are not only of a much higher antiquity than 
bills of exchange, but they are of a totally different origin. They cannot be 
said to be made secundum usum meroatorum, since they find their recognition 
and validity in the more ancient rules of the common law. On the other 
hand, bills of exchange find their origin and sanction in the usage and 
custom of merchants, the lew mercatoria, a particular or peculiar system, 
which, being in the interest of commerce, became at length gradually en- 
grafted into, and established as a part of the common law itself." * • • 
''AH contracts under seal are specialties, sealing and delivery being the par« 
ticular form and ceremony which alter the nature and operation of the 
agreement. Forms, consecrated by time and usage, become substance. The 
seal is substance and changes the nature and operation of the contract. It 
seems to me, therefore, that the question which I have been considering is 
settled upon principle against plaintiffs. But however this may be, it has 
been held as settled upon authority for more than thirty years past." 

6. Irwin v. Brown, 2 Cranch C. C. 314. 

7. Clegg V. Lemesurier, 15 Gratt. 108; Mann v. Sutton, 4 Rand. 253; Hop- 
kins V. Raibroad Co., 3 Watts & S. 410; Clark v. Farmers' Mfg. Co., 15 
Wend. 256; Parks v. Duke, 2 McCord, 380; Lewis v. Wilson, 5 Blackf. 369; 
Eelper v. Alden, 3 Minn. 332; Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johns. 239; Brown v. 
Jordhal, 32 Minn. 135; Muse v. Dantzler, 85 Ala. 361; McCrummen v. Camp- 
bell, 82 Ala. 667; Rawson v. Davidson, 49 Mich. 607; Laidley v. Bright, 17 W. 
Va. 779. 

8. Clark v. Farmers' Mfg. Co., 15 Wend. 256. See Central Nat. Bank v. 
Charlotteville, etc.; R. Co., 5 S. C. 156^ where respecting a note with the 



§ 32. THE PAPEB MUST BE OPENED. 41 

indeed that anterior to the statute of 3 & 4 Anne, already 
quoted,® bonds were occasionally transferred by indorsement in 
like manner as bills and notes, but the practice did not ripen 
into a settled custom, and by the above-mentioned statute they 
were not included with notes in being declared negotiable.*^ It 
is to be observed however that merely by attaching a seal to the 
signature does not make it a sealed instrument, unless there be 
a recoguition of the seal in the body of the instrument by some 
fiuch phrase as " witness my signature and seal," or " signed and 
sealed," for otherwise the door would be thrown open to frauds 
and forgeries, by the facility with which seals could be super- 
added.** Such is the view taken in Virginia; but it is conceded 

seal of the corporation, which made it impressed upon it, and which was held 
negotiable, it was said : " The seal of a corporation is not in itself conclusive 
of an intent to make a speciaUy. It is equally appropriate as the means of 
eTidendng the assent of a corporation to be bound hy a simple contract as 
by a specialty." Indorsement by corporation through its seal held not to 
affect its negotiability in Rand v. Dovey, 83 Pa. St. 280. See post, $ 664; 
Aaerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co., 28 Minn. 291 ; Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 72 
Hun, 373, 25 N. Y. Supp. 447. But it was further held in this case that in 
the absence of proof that it was the seal of the company, and was affixed 
by authority and with the intention of making the instrument a specialty 
didn't destroy its negotiability. Compare Landauer v. Sioux Falls Improve- 
ment Co., 10 S. Dak. 205, 72 N. W. 467. But the seal affixed must be shown 
to have been the seal of the corporation and affixed by its authority. See 
Weeks v. Esler, 68 Hun, 518, 23 N. Y. Supp. 54. 
0. See ante, § 5, note. 

10. Buller v. Crips, 6 Mod. 29 (1704). Holt, C. J., declared thai he had de- 
sired to speak with two of the most famous merchants in London, and that 
they had told him that not only nortes, but bonds for money, were trans- 
ferred frequently and indorsed as bills of exchange. 

11. Peadley v. Boatwright, 2 Leigh, 196. In Anderson v. Bullock, 4 Munf. 
442, the foUowing was held to be a promissory note, and the scroll annexed 
ts a seal to be mere surplusage : 

"^^1.81. Richmond, October 10, 1801. 

" On or before the first day of February next, we bind ourselves, our heirs, 
executors, or administrators, to pay Thomas and Amos Ladd, or order, two 
thousand three hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighty-one cents. 

"AUSTIN & ANDERSON, [l. s.] " 
Cromwell v. Tate's Exrs., 7 Leigh, 305; Baird v. Blagrove, 1 Wash. 170; 
Argenbright v. Campbell, 3 H. & M. 174; Austin v. Whitlock, 1 Munf. 487; 
Jenkins v. Hart, 2 Rand. 446; Clegg v. Lemesurier, 15 Gratt. 108; Skrine v. 
Lewis, S. S. of Ga., April 11, 1882, Cent. L. J., April 21, 1882, p. 317, vol. 14, 
No. 16; Humphries v. Nix, 77 Ga. 98; Weeks et ah v. Esler, 143 N. Y. 374, 38 
y. E. 377. 



42 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. §§ 33-35 

that the rule was otherwise at common law,^ and there are de- 
cisions adhering to the common-law rule.^* 

§ 33. Statutes as to sealed instnunents. — In some of the States 
of the United States sealed instruments for the payment of m.oney 
are placed by statute upon the same footing as bills and notes 
in respect to their negotiability; and the addition of a seal to a 
bill or note payable to order or bearer in no way impairs its 
negotiability.^* 

In others, bonds are made transferable, and may be sued upon 
in the name of the assignee, but the latter takes them subject to 
all defenses that were available to the original obligee.^*^ 

§ 34. Scrolls used as seals. — A scroll affixed as a seal is gener- 
ally of the same force as a seal,^® and parol evidence, where such 
is the case, is admissible to show that a scroll affixed was in- 
tended as a seal." ^An instrument binding the signers to pay a 
certain sum of money, and signed by some with, and by others 
without, seals, is the bond of the former, and the promissory note 
of the latter, and one action of debt may be brought against all 
the parties.^® 

SECTION" n. 

CEETAINTY AS TO ENGAGEMENT TO PAY. 

§ 35. In the second place the engagement to pay must be certain. 
— Therefore the bill must contain a certain direction, and the 
note a certain promise to pay. A bill is in its nature the demand 
of a right, not the mere asking of a favor, and therefore a suppli- 
cation made, or authority given to pay an amount, is not a bill. 
The language, " Mr. Little, please to let the bearer have £7, 

12. CromweU v. Tate's Exrs., 7 Leigh, 305; Clark v. Read, 12 D. C. App. 
343. 

13. Trasher v. Everhart, 3 Gill & J. 246. 

I 14. Colorado, Dakota, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, 

Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee; Railway Co. v. Lynde, 55 Ohio 

I St. 23, 44 N. E. 696; Christian v. Parrott, 114 N. C. 215, 19 S. E. 151; Farrar 

V. Bank of New York, 90 Ga. 331, 17 S, E. 87. 

15. As in Virginia. Marble Falls Ferry v. Spitler, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 82, 25 
S. W. 985. 

16. Giles V. Maulden, 7 Rich. II; Osbom v. Kistler, 35 Ohio St. 99; Peasley 
I V. Boat Wright, supra. Contra ^ Black well v. Hamilton, 47 Ala. 470. 

I 17. Pollock V. Glassell, 2 Gratt. 439. 

18. Rankin v. Roler, 8 Gratt. 63. 



§36, CEBTAIKTY AS TO ENGAGEMENT TO PAY. 43 

and place it to my account, and you will much oblige your hum- 
ble servant," was held not a bill;^® and so "please to send £10 
by bearer, as I am so ill I cannot wait upon you; "^ but on the 
other hand, where the language was: " Mr. Nelson will much 
oblige Mr. Webb by paying I. Kuff, or order, on his account, 
twenty guineas," was held to import an order, and therefore a 
good bill.^ The usual and appropriate expression used in bills 
is, '* please pay," and it has been well said by Justice Story that 
the language should not be too nicely scanned^ nor be regarded 
because of its politeness as asking a favor rather than demand- 
ing a right.^ It is a perfectly valid phrase, being a mere form 
of civility.^ "Please let the bearer have $50; I will arrange 
it with you this forenoon," and signed, " yours, most obedient," 
was held sufficient in Kentucky.^ An instrument directing a 
certain person to deliver a particular sum to A. B., or to be 
accountable or responsible to him for a particular sum, would 
k- a good bill,^ and so would a direction to credit him in cash 
for a particular sum,^ or any expression from which such direc- 
tion could be inferred. 

§ 36. Certainty of promise in a note. — A promissory note must 
contain a certain promise to pay. " I promise to pay, or cause 
to be paid," would suffice, because the undertaking that the pay- 
ment be made is definite and certain.^ It is said by Story, that 
**it seems that to constitute a good promissory note, there must 
be an express promise upon the face of the instrument to pay 
the money; for a mere promise implied by law, founded upon 

19. Little V. Slackford, 1 Moody & M. 371; Nicely et al. v. The Winne- 
l»go Xat. Bank of Rockford, 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text. 

20. The King v. Ellor, 1 Leach Cr. Law, 323. 

21. Ruff V. Webb, 1 Esp. 129. 

22. Story on BHls, § 33; Chitty, 160; Thompson, 6. 

23. Peterson v. Poindexter, 6 Watts & S. 235; Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 
CaL 92; 1 Amea on BiUs and Notes, 3; Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90. 

24. Bresenthal v. WiUiams, 1 Duv. 329. 

25. Horris v. Lee, 2 Ld. Raym. 1396. 

2a Ellison V. Collingride, 9 C. B. 570; Allen v. Sea Fire, etc., Ins. Co., 
S C. B. 574. But see WooMey v. Sergeant, 3 Halst. 262, contra. 

27. Ix)vell V. Hill, 6 Car. & P. 238; Caviness v. Rushton, 101 Ind. 600. 
Here the language was, " I promise to give Emily Caviness two thousand dol- 
ors at my death, which she claims of my estate." Held insufficient to sup- 
port an action. An instrument with the words " Hibbard, Spencer & Co., 
Cartage Ticket, 50 cents," in print, and the name " Hibbard, Spencer & Co." 
signed in writing, was held not to be negotiable paper. Hibbard v. HoUoway, 
13 lU. App. 101 ; Kirsch v. Braun, 153 Ind. 247, 53 N. E. 1082. 



44 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 36a. 

an acknowledged indebtedness, will not be sufficient."® But we 
think the better language is used by Byles, who says: " No pre- 
cise words of contract are necessary, provided they amount, in 
legal effect, to a promise to pay."* In other words, if over and 
above the mere acknowledgment of debt, there may be collected 
from the words used a promise to pay it, the instrument may be 
regarded as a promissory note.*^ 

§ 36a. Due-bills. — In England it seems to be well settled that 
an ordinary due-bill, which is there frequently given in the fol- 
lowing form: 

"London, Ist January, 1875. 
"Mr. A. B.: 

« I. O. U. £100. 

" C. D." 

does not amount to a promissory note, but is mere evidence of 
an account stated, requiring no stamp under the English Stamp 
Acts. This was the view taken by Lord Chief Justice Eyre in 
1795, where the paper ran, " I. O. TJ. eight guineas,"'^ and though 
in 1800 Lord Eldon held a similar paper to be a promissory note, 
and ruled it out when offered in evidence, because it had no 
stamp,^ subsequent decisions have recurred to the doctrine of 
Chief Justice Eyre, and it is the established law of England.'* 

In the United States the decisions are conflicting. In some 
of them a naked due-bill is held to be a promissory note ;** as in 
Illinois, for instance, where the paper ran, " Due G. S. W., five 

28. Story on PromisBory Notes, § 14; Rice v. Rice, 68 Ala. 217. 

29. Byles on Bills, 8. 

30. Cowan v. Hallack, 9 Colo. 578, citing the text. One C. W. Bishop ex- 
ecuted an instrument in writing, as follows: 

"$1000.00 "Penn Yan, July 23, 1883. 

"At my death, I request to be paid to Mary A. Chase one thousand dol- 
lars, for value received, if she is my wife; this note is void if I should die 
before she is my wife; this is to be paid in full with interest; this is to be 
paid before anything else." Held, that the instrument contains no promise 
to payee, and is therefore not a promissory note. Hatch v. Gillette, 8 App. 
Div. 605, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1016. 

31. Fisher v. Leslie, 1 Esp. 425. 

32. Guy v. Harris, Chitty on Bills, 626. 

33. Israel v. Israel, 1 Campb. 499, Lord EUenborough. The paper ran : " I 
owe my father £470." Childers v. Boulnois, Dowl. & Ry. 8; Payne v. Jenkins. 
4 Car. & P. 326; Fesenmayer v. Adcock, 16 M. & W. 449; Tompkins v. 
Ashby, 6 B. & C. 541, 9 Dowl. & Ry. 543. 

34. Fleming v. Burge, 6 Ala. 373; Brewer v. Brewer, 6 Ga. 688; Marrigan 
V. Page, 4 Humphr. 247; Cummings v. Freeman, 2 Humphr. 145 (overruling 
Read v. Wheeler, 2 Yerg. 50) ; Agens v. Agens, 50 N. J. Eq. 666, 25 Atl. 707. 



§§ 37, 38. CEETAINTY AS TO ENGAGEMENT TO PAY, 46 

hiindred and twenty-five dollars,"^ and in Missouri, where the 
words were, " Due B., one hundred and fifty dollars>"^® and in 
Arkansas, " Balance due P. & S., $178, for work done/'" In 
others such a paper is held to be a mere acknowledgmient of 
mdebtedness.*® 

§ 87. The question seems to us simply one of intention. If a 
debtor give a mere due-bill to his creditor containing nothing 
but an acknowledgment of the debt, it is fair to presume that he 
merely designed to furnish him with evidence of its existence. 
The law implies a promise to pay from the existence of the debt; 
but that promise not being written on the note, it cannot be 
regarded as a promissory note. To be a " promissory note," the 
promise must not only be implied ftom the fact of indebtedness 
evinced by the note^ but should be expressed in the note in so 
many words, or by necessary implication.*^ 

This was the ruling in Maine where the paper wbs signed by 
the president of the corporation with his personal signature only, 
and ran, " Amount due C. E. Ward to date $28.26 " — the court 
considering that it was a mere voucher of the amount due, that it 
was without consideration as a note, and should not be so 
regarded.^ 

§ 88. There may be words superadded to the acknowledgment 
however, from which an intention to accompany it with an en- 
gagement to pay may be gathered. Thus in New York, the 
words, " Due S., or bearer, $340, for value received, with inter- 
est," were held to constitute a note;** so in the same State, the 
words, "Due A. B., or bearer, two hundred and 26-100, for 
value received " ;^ in Maine, the words, " Good to bearer,"** and 

85. Jacquin v. Warren, 40 lU. 459. 

86. Brady v. Chandler, 31 Mo. 28. 

87. Anderson v. Pearce, 36 Ark. 203; St. Louis R. Co. v. Camden Bank, 47 
Ark. 546. 

88. Currier v. Lockwood, 40 Conn. 348; Read v. Wheeler, 2 Yerg. 50; Gay 
T. Rooke (Mass.), 23 N. E. 835. This case holds an I. O. U. to be not a note. 

39. Long v. Straus (Ind.), 4 West. 235. 

40. Ward v. Barrows, 86 Me. 148, 29 Atl. 922. 

41. Sackett y. Spencer, 29 Barb. 180. In Colorado, the words, ''Due A. 
1250, value receiTed," are held sufficient by force of statute. Lee v. Balcom, 
9 Colo. 216; Lowe t. Murphy, 9 Ga. 338; Schmitz v. Hawkeye Gold Mining 
Co., 8 8. Dak. 544, 67 N. W. 618. 

42. Russell v. Whipple, 2 Cow. 536. 
48. Hussey v. Winslow, 59 Me. 170. 



46 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 39. 

in Tennessee, " Due J. C. R., or order,"** were held snflB-ciently 
obligatory to constitute a promissory note. So in New Hamp- 
shire the language, " Good E. C, or order, for thirty dollars, 
borrowed money,"**^ and in Maine, " Due A. B., or order, $20, on 
demand,"*® has been given the like effect; and so in Arkansas, 
"Due I. H.^ or order, value received."**^ In these., as in other 
cases, the insertion of negotiable words have been justly con- 
strued as manifesting an intention to make the instrument promis- 
sory and negotiable, and they have been effectuated accordingly.** 

§ 39. The words " on demand " as importii^ promise. — The in- 
sertion of " on demand " has been thought, in itself, sufficient 
to show that the debtor intended to do more than merely state 
the balance due on account. It recognizes an obligation, and 
necessarily implies a promise to pay when demanded. This view 
was taken in Connecticut, where the words used were, " Due 
John Allen, $94.91, on demand," Smith, J., saying: "Where 
a writing contains nothing more than a bare acknowledgment of 
a debt, it does not, in legal construction, import an express 
promise to pay; but where a writing imports not only the acknowl- 
edgment of a debt, but an agreement to pay it; this amounts to 
an express contract."*® And the like view has obtained in other 
cases. The mere addition of the words " value received," would 
not alone, it seems, import a promise in addition to the acknowl- 
edgment,*^ though it has been held otherwise." But, " Due A. 

44b Marrigan v. Page, 4 Humphr. 247. 

45. Franklin v. March, 6 N. H. 364; Huyck v. Meador, 24 Ark, 196; Cum- 
mings y. Freeman, 2 Humphr. 144. 

46. Carver v. Hayes, 47 Me. 257. 

47. Huyck v. Meador, 24 Ark. 192. 

48. Johnson School Township v. Citizens' Bank, 81 Ind. 515. 

49. Smith v. Allen, 5 Day, 337. 

60. Read v. Wheeler, 2 Yerg. 60 (overruled by Cummings v. Freeman, 2 
Humphr. 143); Gray v. Bowden, 23 Pick. 282; Currier v. Lockwood, 40 Conn. 
348, Am. Law Keg., Jan., 1876. Judge Redfield, in a note to this case, dis- 
sents from its conclusions, as did also two of the judges (Foster and Phelps), 
who were members of the court which decided it. Judge Redfield says: "A 
promissory note is not required to be in any particular form, much less to em- 
brace the word ' promise.' All that is required is that the written terms used, 
in their proper legal construction, shall import an admission by the maker that 
he holds himself bound to pay the payee a definite sum of money at a definite 
time ; or, no time being named, then presently on demand." See also in accord 
with decision in Currier v. Lockwood, the following cases: Davis v. Allen, 
3 N. Y. 168 (semhle); Hotchkiss v. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 478 {semble). 

61. Finney v. Shirley, 7 Mo. 42; McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 42. See Huyck 
V. Meador, 24 Ark. 192; Lee v. Balcom, 9 Colo. 216. 



§§ 40, 41. CERTAINTY AS TO THfi FACT OF PAYMBNT. 47 

B., $325, payable on demand,"^^ or, " I acknowledge myself in- 
debted to A. in £109, to be paid on demand, for value received,"*** 
or " I. 0. U. £85, to be paid May 5th,"** would constitute promis- 
sory notes, significance being given to the words of payment as 
indicating a promise." 

§ 40. The wordsj " I undertake to pay A. B. a certain sum for 
a suit of clothes ordered by Daniel Paige," have been held to 
be a guarantee and not a note.**® There are other memoranda 
of indebtedness which have been held, like bare due-bills^ not to 
amount to notes. Thus, a memorandum, "Mr. T. has left in 
my hands $200," is not a note.*^^ And the following papers: 

" I have received the sum of , which I borrowed from you, 

and I have to be accountable for the said sum with interest,"^ 

and " I. O. TJ. , which I borrowed of Mrs. Melanotte, and 

to pay her five per cent, till paid,"^ have been held not notes, 
because not importing promises to pay. 

So, in a written bargain for buying goods, a promise to pay 
the seller the price in a limited time is not a note, but a mere 
memorandum of the terms of the bargain.*^ But mere expres- 
sions of gratitude, where there is a promise, or other needless 
addition, will not deprive the instrument of its character as a biU 
or note.® 

SECTION ni. 

CEETAINTY AS TO THE FACT OF PAYMBNT. 

§ 41. In the third place the fact of payment miut be certain 

The instrument must be payable unconditionally, and at all events, 
in order to be negotiable. If the order or promise be payable 

52. EimbaU y. Huntington, 10 Wend. 675; MitcheU v. Kome R. Co., 17 6a. 
574; Pepoon v. Stagg, 1 Natt & McC. 102. 

53. Casborne v. Dutton, 1 Selwyn'a N. P. 401. 
54 Waithman v. Elzee, 1 C. & K. 36. 

55. Cowan v. Hallack, 9 Colo. 678, citing the text. 

5a Jarris v. Wilkins, 7 M. & W. 410, Lord Abinger, C. B., saying: " This is 
a memorandum that if the plaintiff will sell Paige clothes, he, the defendant, 
will pay for them." 

57. Tompkins v. Ashby, 6 B. & C. 641, 1 Moody A M. 32. 

58. Home v. Redfearne, 4 Bing. N. C. 433. 

50. Melanotte v. Teasdale, 13 M. & W. 216. See also Taylor v. Steele, 16 
H. & W. 666; Hyne v. Bawdney, 21 L. J. R. 278; Gay v. Rooke (Mass.), 23 
N. E, 835. 

60. Ellis V. EUis, Gow. 216. 

61. Ellis V. Mason, 7 Dowl. 698. 



48 BBQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTBS. § 41. 

provided terms mentioned are complied with; as, for instance, 
that a railroad be built to a certain point by a certain time, it 
is not a bill or note;^ and likewise if payable provided a cer- 
tain act be not done;^ or that a certain receipt be produced;^ 
or another person shall not previously pay;* or provided a cer- 
tain ship shall arrive;^ or provided the maker shall be able;**^ or 
provided the maker shall live a certain time;^ or " on account of 
contract when completed and satisfactory;® or provided one per- 
son shall first pay another a certain sum,''^ or upon any contin- 
gency."*^^ Sometimes a condition of time is expressed by the 
word "when," as "when A. shall marry; ""^^ "when a certain 
suit is determined; "^* " when a certain sale is made; ""'^ or " cer- 
tain dividends declared; "^ or " upon completion of work to be 
done on a dwelling-house; "^® or " not to be paid unless I shall 
have the use of certain premises; ""^ "when a certain amount is 
collected; "'^® or "when the estate of M. is settled up; ""^ " after 
arrival and discharge of coal by brig A."*^ 

In Massachusetts a ninety-day note for $500 was held not nego- 
tiable, because it contained the proviso: "as soon as $400 shall 
»— ^ 

62. Blackman v. Lehman, 63 Ala. 547; Eldred v. Malloy, 2 Colo. 320; Chitty 
on Bills, 134; Kingston v. Long, reported in Bayley on Bills (6th ed.), 16; 
Ames on Bills and Notes, vol. 1, p. 31. 

63. Appleby v. Beddolph, 8 Mod. 363; Chitty, Jr., on Bills, 5, 246, — acme- 
times cited as Appleby v. Biddle; Van Zandt y. Hopkins, 151 HI. 248, citing 
text, 37 N. E. 845. 

64. Mason v. Metcalf, 8 Bazt. 440. 
66. Roberts v. Peake, 1 Burr. 323. 

66. Coolidge v. Buggies, 15 Mass. 387; Palmer y. Pratt, 2 Bing. 186. 

67. Ew parte Tootle, 4 Ves. 372; Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 672. 

68. Braham v. Bubb, Chitty on Bills (13th ed.), *136, 136. 

69. Home Bank v. Drumgoole (N. Y.), 15 N. E. 747; Lawrence v. Phippe, 
67 Hun, 61, 22 N. Y. Supp. 16. 

TO. Chapman y. Wright, 70 Me. 595. 

71. Sloan y. McCarty, 134 Mass. 245; Nicely et al, y. Th& Winnebago Nat. 
Bank of Rockford, 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476, dting text. 

712. Pearson y. Garrett, 4 Mod. 242; Beardsley y. Baldwin, Stra. 1167; 
Ahlstrong y. Fitzpatrick, 17 Mont. 295, 42 Pac. 767. 

78. Shelton y. Bruce, 9 Yerg. 24. 

74. De Forest y. Frary, 6 Cow. 161 ; Hill y. Halford, 2 B. & P. 413. 

75. Brooks y. Hargreayes, 21 Mich. 265. 

76. Chandler y. Carey, 64 Mich. 238. 

77. Jennings y. First Nat. Bank, 22 Pac. 777, citing the text. 

78. Corbett y. State of Georgia, 24 G&. 287; Martin y. Shumatte, 62 Tex. 189. 

79. Husband y. Epling, 81 HI. 172 (1876). 

80. Grant y. Wood, 12 Gray, 220; The Lykus, 36 Fed. 922. 



§4:2. CKBTAINTY AS TO THE FACT OF PAYMENT. 49 

be received by the payees, then this note is to be given up to 
payor.''®^ 

So, if it be expressed to be "payable subject to the policy; "®* 
or subject to a certain contract;^ or if an order be given on 
a savings bank with a memorandum thereon " the bank-book of 
the depositor must accompany this order,"®* it is not negotiable. 
And so if expressed " as per agreement,"®*^ or " given as collateral 
security with an agreement,"®® or " unless a certain other note 
shall not be paid; "®^ and a note containing a provision that the 
payee, or his assigns, may extend the time of payment thereof, 
is not negotiable.®® But the words, "as per memorandum of 
agreement," were not considered to render the promise conditional 
in an English case.®^ In all these cases the contingency implied 
deprives the instrument of its character as a bill or note, as the 
events named may never happen. If payable in installments, 
no time for the payment of the installments being mentioned, 
it is not a promissory note.*^ In Illinois, where the promise was 
to pay a railroad company or order, a certain sum, in such in- 
stallments, and at such times as the directors of the payee comr 
pany nught assess or require, it was held negotiable, and in effect 
payable on demand, or in installments on demand,*^ 

§ 42. In England, it has been held that an order for a certain 
sum "payable ninety days after sight or when realized," was 
not a bill, as the latter alternative made it payable upon a con- 
tingency,®^ but this is not the view which prevails in such cases 
in the United States.*® 

81. Habbard v. Moseley, 11 Gray, 170; Koads v. Webb, 01 Me. 411, 40 Atl. 
128, 64 Am. St. Rep. 246. 

82. American Exchange Bank v. Blanchard, 7 Allen, 332. But a mere note 
of the number of the policy for which the note was given would not vitiate 
its negotiability. Union Ins. Co. v. Greenleaf , 64 Me. 123. See 9 797. 

83. Cuahing v. Field, 70 Me. 50. 

84. White v. Gushing, 88 Me. 342, 34 Atl. 164, 51 Am. St. Bep. 402. 
85b Bank of Sherman v. Apperson, 4 Fed. 25. 

8a Costello V. Crowell, 127 Mass. 293. 

87. Grimison v. Russell, 14 Nebr. 521, 45 Am. Hep. 126. 

88. Woodbury v. Roberts, 59 Iowa, 348, 44 Am. Rep. 686; Ooppin T. 
Spenser, 39 Fed. 262; Smith v. Van Blarcom, 45 Mich. 371. 

89. Jury v. Baker, El., Bl. & El. 469. 

90. Moffat V. Edwards, Car. & M. 16. 

91. White V. Smith, 77 111. 361. 

92. Alexander v. Thomas, 16 Q. B. 333. 

93. See Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166, Day, J., saying that the English 

Vol. 1 — 4 



60 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 43. 

§ 43. Authorities in the TTnited States In the United States, 

if the time must certainly come, although the particular day is 
not mentioned in the note, it is regarded as negotiable, as the 
fact of payment is then certain. Thus, where the note ran, " I 
promise to pay A. B., or bearer, $75 one year from date, with 
interest annually, and if there is not enough realized by good 
management in one year, to have more time to pay, in the manu- 
facture of the plaster bed on Steams' land," it was held nego- 
tiable., Pierpont, C. J., saying that the only uncertainty was as 
to the length of time to be given, and " this uncertainty the law 
makes certain by giving him a reasonable time thereafter (the 
time prescribed) to make the payment."^ So, where the note 
ran, ** to be paid as soon as collected from my accounts at P.,'' it 
was held that the phrase was not intended to make the debt 
conditional, but only to prescribe that a reasonable time be al- 
lowed for collection of the accounts.^ So, where the note was 
to pay "by 20th of May, or when he completes the building 
according to contract," it was held that the 20th of May fixed 
the ultimate day when it should fall due.®® So, where the prom- 
ise was to pay " against the 19th of December, or when the house 
John Mayfield has undertaken to build for me is completed," 
the like decision was made.^ So, where a promise to pay on or 
before March 12, 1882, contained the further provision, " this 
note becomes due and payable when (if before March 12, 1882) 
A. B. & Co. shall dispose of a part or all of their interest in the 
New York Hotel, or when the interest of B. may be sold or dis- 
posed of." ®® So a note payable on or before a certain day f^ for, 

view " is not recognized in the United States as announcing the correct rule " 
and approving the text. 

94. Capron v. Capron, 44 Vt. 412 (1872) ; Eiker v. Sprague Mfg. Co., 14 R. I. 
402 (1884), citing the text, where reservation in a note to pay it before 
maturity in instalments of not less than 5 per cent., whenever semi-annual 
interest falls due, was held not to render it nonnegotiable. 

95. Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124 (1855). And a note which con- 
tains provision authorizing an attorney to appear at any time and confess 
judgment therein does not render a note uncertain as to time of payment, 
such provision is illegal and no part of the note. See Tolman v. Janson, 106 
Iowa, 455, 76 N. W. 732. 

96. Stevens v. Blount, 7 Mass. 240 (1810); Gamer v. Hall & Farley, 114 
Ala. 166, 21 So. 835. 

97. Goodloe v. Taylor, 3 Hawks, 458. 

98. Kiskadden v. Allen, 7 Colo. 206; Dobbins v. Oberman, 17 Nebr. 165. 

99. Mattison v. Marks, 31 Mich. 421; Jordan v. Tate, 19 Ohio (N. S.) 586; 
First Nat. Bank v. Skeen, 20 Mo. App. 119, citing the text; Curtis v. Horn, 



§44. CERTAINTY AS TO THE FACT OF PAYMENT. 51 

as said in such a case by Cooley, J. : " The legal rights of the 
holder are clear and certain ; the note is due at a time fixed, and 
it is not due before. True, the maker may pay sooner if he shall 
choose, but this option if exercised would be a payment in advance 
of the legal liability to pay, and nothing more. Notes like this 
are common in commercial transactions, and we are not aware 
that their negotiability is ever questioned in business dealings. 
It ought not to be questioned for the sake of any distinction 
that does not rest upon sound reason." ^ 

§44. Other eases have arisen illnstratiye of these views. — A 

note payable on demand after date, " when convenient," has been 
held payable absolutely in a reasonable time ;* and so a note pay- 
able " as soon as I can." * So a note payable in six months, " or 
as soon as I can with due diligence make the money out of said 
patent right ; " * a note payable in nine months, " or as A.'s horse 
earns the money in the cavalry service ; " * a note payable twelve 
months after date, " or sooner if made out of a certain sale," * 
have been each held valid, negotiable notes, payable absolutely at 
the termination of the time expressed, and earlier, provided the 
alternative event transpired. A note payable "from the avails 
of logs bought of iL M., w^hen there is a sale made; " ^ or " when 

58 N. H. 504; Hughes County v. Livingston, 43 C. C. A. 641, 104 Fed. 306, 
citing text. 

1. Mattison v. Marks, 31 Mich. 421 (1875); Helmer v. Krolick, 36 Mich. 
373 (1877). See post, { 46. To same effect. Smith v. Ellis, 29 Me. 422, note 
payable as soon and as fast as the money could be collected; and, if not col- 
lected, in four years. But a note promising to pay a stated sum with interest 
" on or before two years from date," and providing that if it be paid within 
one year no interest should be paid, has been held nonnegotiable, because 
lacking certainty in time and amount. Story v. Lamb, 52 Mich. 525 ; Charlton 
r. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166, 47 Am. Rep. 800, citing the text; Fogg v. School Dis- 
trict, 75 Mo. App. 169. 

2. Works V. Hershey, 35 Iowa, 340; Lewis v. Tipton, 10 Ohio (N. S.), 88. 
S«« post, § 88. 

8. Kmcard v. Higgins, 1 Bibb, 396. 

4. Palmer v. Hummer, 10 Kan. 464. Contra, Hubbard v. Mosely, 11 Gray, 
170. 

5. Gardner v. Barger, 4 Heisk. 669. 

6b Ernst v. Steckman, 74 Pa. St. 13. To same eiTect, see Cidne v. dliidester, 
85 HI. 623; Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164; Woollen v. Ulrich, 64 Ind. 120; 
Xoll y. Smith, 64 Ind. 511; Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166. 

7. Sears v. Wright, 24 Me. 278. See Fiske v. Pratt, 154 Mass. 367, 28 N. E. 
282. 



52 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. §§ 4:5, 45a. 

I sell my place where I now live," have been held in Maine pay- 
able absolutely after a reasonable time.® 

§ 45. So, where the note was to pay " as soon as realized," to 
which was added, " to be paid in the course of the season now 
coming," Shaw, C. J., said the undertaking to pay was absolute, 
and that " whatever time may be understood by the ' coming 
season,' whether harvest-time or the coming year, it must come 
by mere lapse of time, and that must be the ultimate limit of the 
time of payment." ® So, where the certificate is payable " on the 
return of this certificate," it is negotiable, because that merely 
requires, as in the case of any note, the return of the evidence of 
the debt ;*^ but if there be added, " and the return of my guaranty 
of a certain note," it would engraft a collateral condition which 
would defeat the n^otiability of the instrument.^* 

The American decisions quoted seem to us salutary and correct 
It has been held by the United States Supreme Court that a note 
payable " as soon as the crop can be sold, or the money raised 
from any other source," is not a promissory note.*^ 

§ 46a. In Massachusetts, it is considered essential to the nego- 
tiability of the note that it be payable at a definite time, or at a 
time that can be made definite at the election of the holder. And 
accordingly that an instrument given with a mortgage, promising 
to pay a certain sum in a year or a half from date, " or sooner, at 
the option of the mortgagor, with interest at a certain rate during 
the term of the mortgage," was not a negotiable note.*^ And this 
view has been approved in Missouri, where corporate bonds pro- 
vided that " the company reserve the right to pay the same at any 



8. Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195. 

9. Cota V. Buck, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 588 (1844). 

10. See §§ 47, 1703, 1707. 

11. Smilie v. Stevens, 39 Vt. 316; Blood v. Northrup, 1 Kan. 29; Van 
Zandt V. Hopkins, 151 Ul. 248, citing text, 37 N. E. 845. 

12. Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. 660. 

13. Stults V. Silva, 119 Mass. 137; Way v. Smith, 111 Mass. 523; Mahoney 
V. Fitzpatrick, 133 Mass. 151. On the other hand it has been held that "A 
promissory note payable when payor or payee mutually agree is to be con- 
strued as meaning that it is payable on demand when and after the payor 
ought reasonably to have agreed." Page y. Cook, 164 Mass. 166, 41 N. £. 
115, 49 Am. St. Rep. 449. See also Powers v. Manning, 154 Mass. 370, 21 
N. E. 290. 



§ 46. CEKTAINTY AS TO THE FACT OF PAYMENT. 68 

time by adding to the principal a sum equal to twenty per cent 
thereof." ^^ This latter decision seems clearly right, as tha amount 
payable was not certain. But if a certain, or reasonably definite, 
time be fixed when the liability to pay occurs, thus marking the 
limit of the currency of the note and the period of its maturity, 
the fact that it may be taken up in advance ought not to impair 
its character as a negotiable note, and we have already given what 
seems to us the better opinion, as expressed by Judge Cooley, in 
reference to instruments so payable.** 

§ 46. If payable when, or so many days after, "A. shall come 
of age,"*" the instrument would not be a bill or note, as A. might 
die a minor, and the fact that he actually attains majority does 
not alter it ; but if the time when A. will come of age is specified, 
it will be good, as it will be taken to be payable absolutely when 
the time arrives.*^ If payable at, or within a certain time after, 
a man's death, it is sufficient, because the event must occur.*® And 
the words after the promise " to be allowed at my decease " would 
mean to be paid out of the maker's estate, and the paper would 

14. Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 339; Bank v. Booze, 75 Mo. App. 189, text 
cited. 

15. Fogg V. School District, 75 Mo. App. 159; ante, fi 43; Coulter v. Clark, 
2 Ind. App. 512, 28 N. K. 723. 

18. Rice V. Bice, 43 App. Div. 458, 60 N. Y. Supp. 97, citing text; Kelley 
V. Hemmingway, 13 111. 604. 

17. Gobs v. Nelson, 1 Burr. 226. 

1& Cooke Y. Colehan, 2 Stra. 1217; Colehan v. Cooke, Welles, 393; Chitty, 
Jr., on Bills, 301; 1 Ames on Bills and Notes, 83; RofTey v. Greenwell, 10 Ad. 
& El. 222; Conn y. Thornton, 46 Ala. 587; Mortee y. Edwards, 20 La. Ann. 
236. A curious case arose in Scotland, in which it appears that a party ac- 
cepted a bill payable at a certain time after his decease. He sunriYcd the 
acceptance thirty-seYcn years. The court regarded the matter as so anamolous 
as not to be subject of a bill of exchange, and sustained objections to the 
bill. Stewart y. Fullarton, Morrison's Dictionary of Decisions, 1408; Ames 
OQ Bills and Notes, 92 ; Mahier y. Successors of Henne, 246 ; Price y. Jones, 
105 Ind. 544, citing the text; Beatty y. Western College, 177 HI. 281, 52 N. E. 
432, 60 Am. St. Rep. 242; Banker y. Coons, 40 App. DiY. 572, 68 N. Y. Supp. 
47. The note in this case read : "After the death of Elizabeth AYcry Horton, 
for value received, I promise there shall be paid by my administrators or 
executors to Luella Banker, if living, if not, to her heirs, if any, if none, to 
my nearest kin, three thousand dollars, with interest." The court, comment- 
ing upon the note, said : " It is not necessary to characterize it as a non- 
negotiable note; it is simply necessary to observe that it is a valid contract 
to pay upon consideration a fixed sum to the plaintiff, if she should be alive 
to receive it at the due day thereof." Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N. Y. 462, 30 
N. E. 487; Camwright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 93, 27 N. E. 835, 24 Am. St. Rep. 424. 



54 REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 47. 

be a good negotiable note.*® And a promise to pay " on demand, 
after my decease, $850/' signed by the promisor, is a good note, 
negotiable as any other, and binding on the promisor's estate at 
his death.^ So a note payable " one day after date or at my 
death," ^* and if the day of payment must come at the same time, 
it has been said that the distance is immaterial.^ The English 
courts have gone so far as to hold that if payable at a certain 
time after a government ship is paid off, it would be good, because 
government is sure to pay;^ but this decision has been justly 
criticised and distrusted.^ 

An agreement to pay ninety days after the happening of two 
events, one of which may never happen, is not n^otiable.^ A 
note payable " on or by " a certain day is payable on that day ;^ 
and a note payable " by " a certain day may be declared on as 
payable on that day." ^ A bill payable in New York, October 
Slst, or in Paris, December 31st, is unobjectionable.^ 

§ 47. A promise to pay a certain sum for stock, " in whole or 
from time to time in part, as the same shall be required within 
thirty days after demanded, or upon notification of thirty days in 
any newspaper," would answer the conditions necessary to a nego- 
tiable promissory note.^ 

19. Martin v. Stone, 67 N. H. 367, 29 Atl. 845. 
90. Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 7. 

21. Conn v. Thornton, 46 Ala. 588; Hegeman y. Moon, 60 Hun, 412, 30 
N. E. 487; Shaw v. Camp, 160 El. 425, 43 N. E. 608. 

22. Worth V. Case, 42 N. Y. 362; Garrigus, Admr. v. The Home Frontier 
and Foreign Missionary Society, 3 Ind« App. 91, 28 N. E. 1009, 50 Am. St. 
Rep. 262, citing text. 

28. Andrews v. Franklin, 1 Stra. 24; Evans v. Underwood, 1 Wils. 262. 

24. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 40; Edwards on Bills, 142. Seemingly in 
support of the proposition stated is the case of Powers v. Manning, 154 Mass. 
370, 28 N. E. 290. Held, an action may be brought upon a promissory note 
which by its terms is payable " when the United States pays judgments " un- 
der sections 5 and 8 of United States Statutes of June 5, 1882, upon the 
''Alabama claims in the so-called class 2 cases," if the United States has in 
the main paid all judgments of the first class in full and over 35 per cent, of 
the greater part of those of the second class and has substantially exhausted 
the fund. 

25. Sackett v. Palmer, 25 Barb. 178; Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Nebr. 553, 76 
N. W. 1059. 

2a Massie v. Belford, 68 HI. 290; ante, § 43. 

27. Preston v. Dunn, 25 Ala. 507. 

28. Henschel v. Mahlen, 3 Den. 428. 

28. Protection Ins. Co. v. Hill, 31 Conn. 534. See Stillwell v. Craig, 58 
Mo. 24, where note payable in instalments not to exceed 10 per cent, on each 



§ 48. CEBTAINTY AS TO THE FACT OF PAYMENT. 55 

And 80 would a promise to pay a certain sum " in such manner 
and proportions, and at such time and place as A. shall require," 
being payable on demand;*^ but a like promise to pay at such 
times and in such articles as C. may need for support, would not, 
the medium of payment not being money.** A promise to pay a 
certain sum after six months' notice is a good note.*^ A written 
instnunent acknowledging receipt of a certain siun, and promising 
to pay it to a certain party, " on return of this receipt," has been 
held a perfect negotiable note in New York, and its return was 
regarded as not of the essence of the contract.^ 

If the note be in part for a sum certain, and part upon a con- 
tingency, it will not be negotiable.^ 

§ 48. Notes payable in instalments. — If a promissory note be 
made payable by instalments, with a condition that if default be 
made in the payment of the first instalment by the maker, the 
whole shall be immediately payable, it is negotiable within the 
statute of Anne. It is not payable upon a contingency, or at a 
time uncertain, but is likened to a bill payable at a certain time 
after sight; and the period or periods when it shall be done is 
dependent on the act of the maker himself." In Michigan, where 
the promise was to pay " $1,500, to be paid 20 per cent, a month 
from the 1st of July, 1871," toward building a certain road, the 

share, at thirty days' notice of caU from board of directors, was held 
negotiable. 

30. Goshen v. Turpin, 9 Johns. 217 {semhle); Washington County Mutual 
Im. Co. v. Miller, 26 Vt. 77. 

31. CoTbett V. Steinmetz, 15 Wis. 170. 

32. Walker v. Roberts, Car. & M. 590; Gaytes v. Hibbard, 5 Biss. 99 
imnble); Dutchess County v. Davis, 14 Johns. 238 {semhle), 

88. Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 168, Church, C. J., saying of the paper: " It 
contains an express promise to pay Feist or order a specified sum of money 
upon demand, with interest. These are the statutory elements of such a 
(negotiable promissory) note." 1 Rev. Stat. 721, fi 7. "The words, * on the 
return of this receipt,' do not make it payable' upon a contingency, or con- 
stitute a condition precedent to any payment. • • • This restriction 
would be implied, if not expressed; it is implied in every promissory note; 
and there is also an implied exception on account of mistake or accidents 
* • * This clause is not of the essence of the contract." See ante, $ 45. 

34 Palmer v. Ward, 6 Gray, 340. 

35. Carlon v. Kenealy, 12 M. & W. 139. See Miller v. Biddle, 13 L. T. R. 
334 (1865), Pollock, C. B., questioning Carlon v. Kenealy; Smith v. Champion, 
M Ga. 92, 29 S. E. 160; Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526^ citing text; Morling ▼. 
Bronson, 37 Nebr. 608, 56 N. W. 205. 



66 REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 49. 

note was held negotiable.^ And in Illinois, where a note is not 
payable to a corporation or order, " in such instalments, and at 
such times as the directors of said company may from time to 
time require," the like decision was rendered, Sheldon, J., saying : 
" It was in effect payable on demand, or in instalments on de- 
mand." ^ An option expressed in a note that the holder may 
treat it as due immediately upon default in payment of an in- 
stalment of interest must be exercised in a reasonable time, and 
delay of seven months, as has been held, would be unreasonable 
and would discharge an indorser.^ Such a provision has also 
been held not to impair the negotiability of the instrument.*® 

§49. Cases arising out of Confederate War. — During the war 
between the United States and the Confederate States, obligations 
were frequently given, payable when, or a certain time after, 
peace should be declared. Where a note was expressed to be pay- 
able " six months after peace is declared between the United 
States and the Confederate States of America," it was held action- 
able six months after peace ensued.*^ And the like ruling pre- 
vailed as to a note payable " thirty days after peace between the 
C. S. and the U. S.," *^ and as to a note payable " one day after 
the treaty of peace." ^ But in West Virginia, where a bond was 
payable " six months after the ratification of peace between the 
U. S. and C. S.," it seems to have been regarded as a wager upon 
the success of the Confederacy ; but the case went off on a formal 
point.** In North Carolina this view has been adopted and ap- 
plied,** and certainly is not without force. Only the United 
States Senate can ratify a peace, and a peace ratified between two 
countries implies the independence of each. And further, it may 
be said that until the condition precedent is fulfilled, no liability 

36. Wright v. Irwin, 33 Mich. 32. 

37. White v. Smith, 77 111. 351 (1875). 

38. Crossmore v. Page, 73 Cal. 213. In Wisconsin, however, it is held that 
a note payable in instalments is rendered nonnegotiable by a subjoined agree- 
ment that in case of default in any payment, or an attempt to dispose of, or 
remove the chattel for the price of which the note is given, the holder may 
declare the whole amount due. Kimball County v. Mellon, SO Wis. 133, 48 
N. W. 1100. 

39. Roberts v. Snow, 43 N. W. 241. 

40. Brewster v. Williams, 2 S. C. 455 (1871). 

41. Mortee v. Edwards, 20 La. Ann. 236 (1868). 

42. Gaines v. Dorsett, 18 La. Ann. 563 (1866). 

43. Harris v. Lewis, 5 W. Va. (Hagans) 576 (1872). 
McNinch v. Ramsey, 66 N. C. 229 (1872). 



§ 50. CERTAINTY AS TO THE FACT OF PAYMENT. 67 

accrues. But upon the principle " res magis valeai, quam pereat/' 
we think the better view is that " six months after peace " would 
fulfill the meaning of the terms as they were used in the country, 
though they are the very words of Confederate treasury notes; 
and it has been so decided in a number of cases, the courts con- 
struing the language according to its popular import, and the 
probable intention of the parties, rather than in its strict technical 
sense.** 

§ 50. Instniments payable out of a particnlar fond not negotiable. 

— In accordance with these principles the character of the in- 
strument as a bill or note is destroyed if it be made payable ex- 
pressly or by implication out of a particular fund ; for its pay- 
ment becomes then conditioned on the sufficiency of that fund, 
which may prove inadequate.*^ Thus the insertion, in an order 
of A. upon B. to pay a certain sura, of the words " on account of 
brick work done on a certain building," *^ or " out of any money 
in his hands belonging to me," *® have been held . to imply con- 
tingencies, and nonnegotiable. So, also, where the paper was ex- 
pressed as payable " for value received in stock, ale, brewing ves- 
sels, etc., this being intended to stand against the undersigned as 
a set-off for the sum left me in my father's will above my sister's 
share," ** and where the words were added, " out of rents," ^ 



45. Knight v. McReynolds, 37 Tex. 204; Atcheson v. Scott, 61 Tex. 213 
(oTemiling Thompson v. Houston, 31 Tex. 610). A case arose in the Supreme 
Court of Appeals of Virginia, involving this question (Phelps v. Moomaw), 
but it was compromised and never came to trial. The inferior court ruled as 
in Texas. Brewster v. WiUiams, 2 S. C. 455; Mortee v. Edwards, 20 La. Ann. 
236; Gaines v. Dorsett, 18 La. Ann. 663; Nelson v. Manning, 53 Ala. 649. 

4e. WadUngton v. Covert, 51 Miss. 631; Miller v. Poage, 66 Iowa, 96; 
Sonnethiel v. Skinner, 67 Tex. 455; White v. Gushing, 88 Me. 342, 34 Atl. 164, 
51 Am. St. Rep. 402. 

47. Pitman v. Crawford, 3 Gratt. 127; Edwards on Bills, 143. 

48. Averett's Admr. v. Booker, 16 Gratt. 165, Lee, J. : ** Here, the sum to 
be paid is not payable absolutely and at all events. It is payable out of a 
particalar fund, to wit, the moneys, if any, in the hands of the drawee, be- 
longing to the drawer. The draft, therefore, cannot be treated as a bill of 
exchange, nor can a recovery be had upon it as such." Jenney v. Hearle, 2 
Ld. Raym. 1361. But see Corbett v. Clark, 46 Wis. 403, where the words " and 
take the same out of our share of the grain," were added to the request by 
the drawee to pay ; and the instrument was held a valid bill. 

49. Clarke v. Perceval, 2 B. & Ad. 660. 

50. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 43. 



58 lUSQUISITES OP BILLS AND NOTES. § 50a. 

" out of avails, when received, on sale of logs," ^^ " out of my 
growing substance," ^^ " out of the net proceeds of certain ore," ^ 
or '' out of a certain claim," " " out of a certain payment when 
made," ^ or " the demand I have against the estate of A./' ^ or 
" out of my part of the estate of A.," *'' or " being the amount 
thau came to you from B. to me," ^ or " out of the proceeds of A/s 
bond," ^^ or " and deduct the same from my share of the profits 
of the partnership," ^ or " and charge the same to our account for 
labor and materials, performed and furnished," ®* or " on account 
of work done as per contract," ^ or " out of amount due me on 
contract."® But a written promise to pay, one day after the 
promisor's death, $2,000 for services rendered, " to be paid out 
of my estate," would be a good note, because payable generally 
and not out of a particular fund.^ 

§ 60a. Certificates of receivers of courts are not regarded as 

negotiable, although framed with the negotiable words usual in 

• — 

51. Kelly y. Bronson, 26 Minn. 359. 

52. Josselyn v. Lacier, 10 Mod. 294. 

53. Worden v. Dodge, 4 Den. 159. 

54. Richmrdson v. Carpenter, 46 N. Y. 661; Corbett v. State, 24 Ga. 287; 
Hoagland v. Erck, 11 Nebr. 580. 

55. Haydock v. Lynch, 2 Ld. Raym. 1563. 

56. West V. Forman, 21 Ala. 400. 

57. Mills V. Kuykendale, 2 Blackf. 47. 

58. Harriman v. Sanborn, 43 N. H. 128. 

59. Kenny v. Hinds, 44 How. Pr. 7. 

60. Munger v. Shannon, 61 N. Y. 258, Dwight, C: "The present order, it 
should be observed, is payable out of an uncertain fund, from profits, and, of 
course, none may be realized. This fact deprives it of an element essential in 
a bill of exchange, which is that it be payable absolutely, and not upon a con- 
tingency. * * * I think that the true construction of the present order 
is, that it was an equitable assignment of a certain amount of the profits of 
the business of L. A. Gulick. Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 3 N. Y. 243, is not 
opposed to this view, since, in that case, there was nothing on the face of 
the bills to indicate that they were drawn on a specific fund, but they were 
in the ordinary forms of bills of exchange. The same remark is to be applied 
to Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 93." 

61. Brill V. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 457. (But query, see $ 61.) The language was 
regarded as ambiguous, and attendant circumstances were considered. 

62. Ehrichs v. De Mill, 75 N. Y. 370, Hand, J.: " It would seem clear that 
an order for payment, as per contract, confined the direction for payment to 
the fund becoming due by contract." Gerow v. Riffe, 29 W. Va. 462; Ameri- 
can Boiler Co. v. Fontham, 34 App. Div. 294, 55 N. Y. Supp. 923. 

63. Hoagland v. Erck, 11 Nebr. 680; Stebbins v. Union Pac. R. Co., 2 Wyo. 
Ter. 78. 

64. Price v. Jones, 105 Ind. 643. 



^ 



§§ 51, 51a. CEBTATNTY AS TO THE FACT OF PAYMENT. 59 

promisfioiy notes, for the reason, as assigned in Illinois, that 
'' whether in any event they are payable in full depends on the 
question whether the fund under the control of the court is 
sufficient for that purpose." ^ 

§ 61. Indications as to mode of reimbursement. — The statement 
as to a particular fund in a bill however will not vitiate it if 
inserted merely as an indication to the drawee how to reimburse 
himself, or to show to what account it should be charged. Thus, 
where the bill said, " and charge the same against whatever 
amount may be due me for my share of fish," it was held a mere 
indication- of the means of reimbursement, and the payment not 
limited to the proceeds of the fish.^ So, where A. B. directed 
the defendant in writing to pay the plaintiff or order £9 10s., 
" as my quarterly half-pay, to be due from 24th of June to 27th 
of September next, by advance," the court held it a good bill, say- 
ing, *' The mention of the half -pay is only by way of direction 
how he shall Reimburse himself, but the money is still to be 
advanced on the credit of the person." ^ So it was held where 
the expression used was " pay A. L., or order, — it will be in full 
of a certain judgment." ^ Where the words used were, " which 
I agree to pay out of my next quarter's mail pay," the Supreme 
Court of Maine said: " The promise is both absolute, and to pay 
in money," and it was deemed evident that the payment was not 
to be confined to the particular fund, but was to be made whether 
it sufficed or not. Hence the note was held negotiable.® 

§51a. Words of consideration, or touching collateral matters — 
The n^otiability of the instrument is not impaired by recitals or 
statements upon its face, which merely state the consideration 
upon which it was made, and impose no other liability upon any 
party thereto than that for the payment of the sum of money 

65. Turner v. P. & S. E. Co., 95 111. 134; Union TYuat Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
R. Co., 7 Fed. 613; Staunton v. Ala. & C. R. Co., 31 Fed. 587; McCurdy v. 
Bowes, 88 Ind. 583. The principle stated in the text has been applied in In- 
^oa to gravel-road bonds. See Kirsch v. Braum, 153 Ind. 247, 63 N. E. 1082. 

6a Redman v. Adams, 51 Me. 433; Corbett v. Clark, 45 Wis. 407; Edwards 
onBais, 144. See §§ 41, 797; Whitney v. Eliot Nat Bank, 137 Mass. 351. 

67. ^lacleod y. Snee, 2 Stra. 762, 2 Ld. Raym« 1481; Nichols v. Buggies, 76 
Me. 27. 

6a Hlett V. Britton, 6 Tex. 229. 

69. Nichols t. Buggies, 76 Me. 27. 



60 EEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 52. 

therein expressed.^® Where there is a memorandum in the in- 
strument that it is " secured according to the condition of a certain 
mortgage ; " ^^ or that it was " given in consideration of a certain 
patent right ; " "^ or " as part pay for a piano-forte," or for any 
other consideration,™ or " and the same will be credited in your 
joint note to me." ''* The statement that collateral security has 
been deposited for the performance of the promise contained in 
the bill or note is a recital only, which does not affect its negotia- 
bility;'^'* and though the recital contain the terms of the deposit, 
that does not alter the case, for it renders neither the amount, the 
time of payment, the payee, nor the engagement to pay, 
uncertain.^' 

§ 62. The rule seems to be that if the memorandum or col- 
lateral agreement impairs the essential characteristics of certainty 
necessary to negotiable paper, it destroys its negotiability, but 
otherwise not. A promise to pay S. or order $1,000, or upon 

70. Si«gel V. Chicago Tr. & Sav. Bank, 23 N. E. 417; Chase v. Behrman, 
10 Daly, 345; aanin v. Esterly Machine Co., 118 Ind. 373; post, §S 108, 150; 
Bresee v. Crumpton, 121 N. C. 122, 28 S. E. 351, citing text; Nat. German 
Am. Bank v. Lang, 2 N. Dak. 66, 49 N. W. 414; Beatty v. Western Collie, 
177 111. 281, 52 N. E. 432, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242. 

71. Littlefield y. Hodge, 6 Mich. 326; Howry y. Eppinger, 34 Mich. 29. In 
this case the note contained the memorandum " secured by mortgage." Held 
not to affect it. See Roberts y. Jacks, 31 Ark. 597; Duncan y. LouisyiUe, 13 
Bush, 385; Kelley y. Whitney, 45 Wis. 110. 

72w Hereth v. Meyer, 33 Ind. 511. See post, § 797. So a recital in the note 
showing that the consideration was a sale to the maker of a soda fountain, 
and retaining title in the payee until the note is paid, does not impair its 
negotiability. Choate y. Stevens, 116 Mich. 28, 74 N. W. 289. 

73. Preston y. Whitney, 23 Mich. 260; Wright y. Irwin, 33 Mich. 32; Mott 
v. Hayana Nat. Bank, 22 Hun, 354; Newton Wagon Co. y. Dyers, 10 Nebr. 284; 
Collins y. Bradbury, 64 Me. 37. See §§ 41, 797; Ridgely Nat. Bank y. Patton, 
109 ni. 484. 

74. Adams v, Boyd, 33 Ark. 33. 

75. Wise y. Charlton, 4 Ad. & El. 786; Fancourt y. Thorne, 9 Q. B. 312; 
Hassoullier v. Harkenck, 7 T. R. 733. 

70. Towne y. Rice, 122 Mass. 67; Arnold y. Rock Riyer, etc., R. Co., 5 
Duer, 207; Heard y. Dubuque County Bank, 8 Nebr. 16. In Mott y. Hayana 
Nat. Bank, 22 Hun, 354, the note was expressed on its face to be "in part 
payment for a portable engine, which engine shall be and remain the property 
of the owner of this note until the amount hereby secured is paid." Held 
negotiable. In Perry y. Bigelow, 128 Mass. 129, the note contained a memo- 
randum authorizing the coUateial to be sold. Held negotiable. See fi§ 108, 
110, 797. 






§ 53. CEBTAIWTY AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID. 61 

surrender of " this note," to issue stock for the sanae, does not 
violate this rule, and is a good note, the option to receive the stock 
being entirely with the payee.^ And the like view applies to a 
note payable in money, or in goods on demand, the election to 
take the goods or no resting with the payee.^® So it was held in 
Wisconsin that a note, otherwise negotiable, was not therein 
affected by the fact that it contained a memorandum that, if the 
maker failed to pay it at maturity, the whole amount of the pre- 
mium on a policy of insurance, for which it was given, should be 
considered earned, and the policy voidJ* And so in Nebraska, 
where a note was given for an agricultural implement, the con- 
dition in the note that title to the implement should not pass until 
the note with interest was paid, was held not to affect its 
negotiability.*' 

The n^otiability of a promissory note payable to order is not 
restrained by the circumstance of its being for the purchase of 
real property in Louisiana, and the notary before whom the con- 
tract of sale was executed writing upon it the words, " ne 
varietur/' according to the laws and usages of that State, and 
others governed by the civil law.®^ 

SECTION IV. 

CEBTAINTY AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID. 

§53. In the fourth place, the amoimt to be paid mnit be cer- 
tain.® — Therefore, the instrument is not negotiable if it engages 
to pay a certain sum " and all other sums which may be due," as 

TT. Hodges v. Shuler, 22 N. Y. 114. 

78. Hosstater t. WiIboii, 36 Barb. 307. 

79. Kirk v. Dodge County Mutual Ins. Co., 30 Wis. 13S. But in that State, 
wliere the note contained a provision for the sale, before its maturity, of col- 
lateral securities delivered therewith, and the application of the proceeds to 
tlie payment of the note, the balance, if any, to become immediately due, it 
▼u held that the note was thereby rendered nonnegotiable. Continental Nat. 
Bank T. McGooch, 73 Wis. 335. 

80. Heard v. Dubuque County Bank, 8 Nebr. 16. Bee also Choate v. Stevens, 
118 Mich. 28, 74 N. W. 289. 

81. Fleckner v. Bank of U. S., 8 Wheat. 338. 

82. Gaar v. Louisville B. Co., 11 Bush, 180; Parsons v. Jackson, 99 U. S. 
{9 Otto) 440; Story v. Lamb, 52 Mich. 525; Smith v. Marland, 59 Iowa, 
345; Farquhar v. Rdeliiy Ins. Co., 13 Phila. 473; Nicely et al v. Winnebago 
Nat. Bank of Rockford, Dl., 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. B. 476, citing text; DonaM- 
wn V. Grant, 16 Utah, 231, 49 Pac. 779. 



62 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 54. 

the aggregate amount is not capable of definite ascertainment-® 
So, if it be for a certain sum " and whatever sum you may collect 
of me for O. ; " ^ or if it be for " the proceeds of a shipment of 
goods, value about £2,000, consigned by me to you ; " ^ or " the 
demands of the sick club in part of interest; " ^ or " a certain 
sum, the same to go as a set-off; " ^ or if it be expressed, " de- 
ducting all advances and expenses;®® or if it be for "$800 and 
such additional premium as may be due on policy No. 218,171 ;"®^ 
or if it be for a sum certain " with interest the same as savings 
banks pay ; " ®^ or if it provide that there shall be no interest if 
paid within a certain time.®* But, id cerium est quod certum 
reddi potest, and if the amount can be ascertained from the face 
of the paper, the form of expression is immaterial.®^ Therefore 
a promise to pay bearer a certain sum per acre for so many acres 
as a certain tract contained, was held to be a note as soon as the 
number of acres was indorsed upon it.®® 

§ 64. Bills and notes payable with exchange. — If there be added 
to the ^amount " with current exchange on another place," the 
commercial character of the paper is not impaired, as that is 
capable of definite ascertainment.®* Exchange is an incident to 

83. Smith y. Nightingale, 2 Stark. 875; Dodge v. Emerson, 34 Me. 96; 
Roads V. Webb, 91 Me. 412. 

84. Legro v. Staples, 16 Me. 252; Lime Rock F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Hewitt, 60 
Me. 407. 

85. Jones v. Simpson, 2 B. & C. 318. 
8a Bolton V. Dugdale, 4 B. & Ad. 619. 

87. Clark v. Pereival, 2 B. & Ad. 660. 

88. Cashman v. Haynes, 20 Pick. 132. 

89. Marret v. Equitable Ins. Co., 54 Me. 537. 

90. WhitweU v. Winslow, 134 Mass. 346. 

91. Lamb v. Story, 45 Mich. 488. Or " with 10% damages for expense 
of collection or may take possession of, and sell property to pay the 
unpaid balance, interest, damages, and costs of sale, and that if there is a 
deficiency on such sale the receiver will pay it on demand." Kimball v. Mellon, 
80 Wis. 133, 48 N. W. 1100; Donaldson v. Grant, 15 Utah, 231, 49 Pac. 779. 
Held in this case that the stipulation in a note which included the covenants 
of a mortgage by which the maker agrees to pay the taxes on the property. 
assessments, insurance, and waste, renders the note nonnegotiable. Contra, 
Hope Y. Barker, 112 Mo. 338, 20 S. W. 567, 34 Am. St. Rep. 387. 

92. Parsons v. Jackson, 90 U. S. (9 Otto) 440. See yoL II^ § 1496a; Lamb 
V. Story, 46 Mich. 488. 

98. Smith v. Clopton, 4 Tex. 109. 

94. Smith v. Kendall, 9 Mich. 241; Leggett v. Jones, 10 Wis. 34; Gnitacup 
v. Woulloise, 2 McLean, 581 ; Price v. Teal, 4 McLean, 201 ; Johnson v. IVisbie^ 



§ 54fl. CERTAINTY AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID. 63 

bills for the transmission of money from place to place. Its 
nature and effect are well understood in the commercial world, 
and merchants having occasion to use their funds at their place of 
business sometimes make the currency at that point the standard 
of payments made to them by their customers at a different point. 
Exchange preserves the equivalence of amounts in value, and does 
not introduce such an element of uncertainty as destroys the nego- 
tiability of the bill or note which embodies it in its terms.** But 
there are cases which hold that an agreement to pay exchange 
destroys the negotiable character of the paper, and renders it a 
special promise requiring proof of consideration.*^ Where there 
is such an addition to a bill or note, payable where it is drawn, 
it is clear that it might be rejected as surplusage, there being in 
such case no exchange.^ 

§ 54a. It has been urged that an instrument payable " with 
exchange " on another place cannot be r^arded as a bill or note : 
(1) Because the fluctuations in the rate of exchange make it im- 
possible to ascertain the amount payable when the bill is issued ; 
and (2) because, if this were not so, evidence dehors the instru- 
ment would be necessary to ascertain the amount due at matur- 
ity * The words of the rulings as to the requisites of negotiable 

15 Mich. 286; Smith v. KendaU, 9 Mich. 242. See also BulUck v. Taylor, 39 
Mich. 137; First Nat. Bank v. Dubuque 8. R. Co., 52 Iowa, 378 (semble); 
Morgan v. Edwards, S. C. of Kansas, Dec., 1881 (reported in Cent..L. J., Jan. 
13, 1882, voL 14, p. 33) ; Bradley v. Lill, 4 Biss. 473. See Pollard v. Berries, 
3 B. A P. 335, where a paper " payable in Paris, or, at the choice of the bearer, 
at the Union Bank in Dover, or at H.'s usual residence in London, according 
to the course of exchange upon Paris," was declared on and treated as a 
promissory note. Contra, Culbertson v. Nelson, 93 Iowa, 187, 61 N. W. 854, 67 
Am. St. Rep. 266. 

95. Smith v. Kendall, 9 Mich. 242. 

96. Low V. Bliss, 24 111. 168; Read v. McNulty, 12 Rich. (Law) 445; Savings 
Bank v. Strother, 28 S. C. 618. In Russell v. Russell, 1 McArthur, 263 (1874), 
it was held that a note made and payable in Michigan, " with current exchange 
OB New York," was not negotiable, the court regarding the sum as uncer- 
tain, BO that an indorsee could not sue in his own name. Philadelphia Bank 
V. Ncwkirk, 2 Miles, 442. 

97. Causer v. Stone, 29 HI. 116; Hill v. Todd, 29 111. 103; Byles on Bills 
(Sharswood's ed.), 73; The Christian County Bank v. Good, 44 Mo. App. 129, 
citing text; Chandler v. Calvert, 87 Mo. App. 368; Garrettson v. Bank, 47 
Fed. 867, citing text. 

98. Benjamin's Chalmers on Bills and Notes, 18; Fitzharris v. Leggatt, 10 
Mo. App. 528; Windsor Sav. Bank v. McMahon, 38 Fed. 283; Hughitt v. John- 
W&, 28 Fed. 865; Flagg v. School District, 4 N. Dak. 30, 68 K. W. 499; Nicely 



64 BEQUISITBS OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 54a. 

mBtruments would lead to these conclusions, and the doctrine of 
the text has been declared '' a slight modification of the general 
rule." ^ But reply may be made that instruments payable with 
exchange have been generally treated as commercial instruments 
by the business world and the courts;^ that a fair construction of 
the statute of Anne, upon which many of the modem statutes are 
modeled, and which has been deemed by some of the courts only 
declaratory of the common law, does not necessarily impeach as a 
note an instrument so payable; and that the spirit of the rule re- 
quiring precision in the amount of negotiable instruments applies 
rather to principal amount than to the ancillary and incidental 
additions of interest or exchange.^ 

et al. y. Winnebago Kat. Bank of Rockford, III., 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. £. 
476; Orner v. Sattley Mfg. Co., 18 Ind. App. 122, 47 N. E. 644. 

99. Leggett v. Jones, 10 Wis. 30; Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526; Hc^pe v. 
Barker, 43 Mo. App. 632, 34 Am. St. Rep. 387, citing text; The Christian 
County Bank v. Good, 44 Mo. App. 129, citing text. 

1. Leggett V. Jones, 10 Wis. 30. 

dw In Morgan v. Edwards, S. C. of Wisconsin, Dec., 1881, reported in Cent. 
L. J., Jan. 13, 1882, vol. 14, p. 35, the court said, per Lyon, J., though the 
precise question was not before it: "A note is payable in lawful money of 
the United States, which is at par in every portion of the country. If a note 
is made payable in Milwaukee with exchange on New York, it requires pre- 
cisely the same sum of money to pay it as would be required had it been 
made payable in New York. The exchange is the cost of drawing a bill and 
transmitting the money to New York to meet it. In Leggett v. Jones, the 
note was payable at the Dodge County Bank with exchanjg^e on New York. 
Had the note been made payable in New York, no one would claim that there 
was any uncertainty in the amount, although the maker would necessarily 
have been subjected to the expense, uncertain in amount, of providing funds 
there to meet it. It is precisely that expense which constitutes and governs 
the cost of exchange. Hence, the same sum of money which would have 
been required to pay the note in New York, would have paid it at the Dodge 
County Bank, including the exchange, according to its terms. In speaking 
of the cost of exchange, we refer only to transactions in money. Nominally, 
the cost of exchange may include the discount on the ordinary currency of 
the place where the bill is drawn, at the place of payment, and such discount 
may greatly fluctuate. But a note payable with exchange is not affected 
by those facts, for it cannot be payable in anything but money (unless by 
virtue of some special statutory provision) and still be a note. There can 
be no discount on money to affect the cost of inland exchange. Hence, it 
may well be said, that the uncertainty in* the amount due on a note which 
stipulates for the payment of exchange between two points, is rather apparent 
than real and substantial." "Current rate of exchange to be added," is 
entirely indefinite. See Palmer v. Fahnestock, 9 Up. Can. C. P. 172; Saxton 
V. Stevenson, 23 Up. Can. C. P. 603; Cazet v. Kirk, 4 Allen (N. B.), 543; Nash 
v. Gibbon, 4 Allen (N. B.), 479. 



§ 55. CEBTAII7TT AS TO THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT. 65 



SECTION V. 

CERTAINTY AS TO THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT, WHICH MUST BE 

MONEY. 

§ 6S. In the fifth place the medium of payment mntt be money — 

It is indispensably requisite, in order to constitute a bill of ex- 
change or negotiable promissory note, that the direction or 
promise be to pay in money.^ And if the instrument be ex- 
pressed to be payable " in cash or specific articles," in the alterna- 
tive,^ or in merchandise, as for instance, '^ in good merchantable 
whisky at trade price," * or " in ginned cotton at eight cents per 
pound," * or " in work," "^ or in any other article than money * as 
tor instance " an ounce of gold," * it becomes a special contract, 
and by the law merchant loses its character as commercial paper. 
Xor can it be for payment in " good East India bonds," ^^ or in 
" foreign bills," " or " by bill or note," ^* or in county scrip.** 
A bond payable " in notes of the United States Bank, or either 
of the Virginia banks," has been held not payable in money;" 
but where the bond was for a certain sum, and it was added, 
'^ which sum may be discharged in notes or bonds due on good 
solvent men in R.," it was held payable in money.** But the 
courts would not go so far, we think, as to hold an instrument 
couched in such terms negotiable,** for in order to possess that 
quality it should afford on its face every element necessary to 

3. Roadfl y. Webb, 91 Me. 410, 40 Am. Rep. 128; Chandler t. Calvert, 87 
Mo. App. 368; Chitty on Bills [*132], 163. 

4. Matthews v. Houghton, 2 Fairfax, 377. 

5. Rhodes V. Lindley, Ohio Cond. 466, Chitty on BilU [*132]. 

6. Lawrence v. Dougherty, 6 Yerg. 435. 

7. Quimhy t. Merritt, 11 Humphr. 439. 

8* Auerbach v. Pritchett, 68 Ala. 461; Dixon v. BoviU, 3 Macq. H. L. 1. 
In Missouri contracts to pay in property, to order or to bearer, are made 
negotiable by statute. Spears v. Bond, 79 Mo. 470; Hyland v. Blodgett, 9 
Oreg. 166; McClellan v. CoflSn, 93 Ind. 466. In this case a note payable in 
services was held nonnegotiable. 

9. Roberts v. Smith, 68 Vt. 494. 

10. Smith V. Boehm, Chitty, Jr., 234. 

U. Jones V. Fales, 4 Mass. 246; Young v. Adams, 6 Mass. 182. 

12. Chitty on Bffls [•132], 153, Chitty, Jr., 638. 

13. Jones ▼. State, 40 Ark. 347. 14. Beirne v. Dunlap, 8 Leigh, 514. 
15. Butcher v. Carlisle, 12 Gratt. 620. 

la Williams v. Sims, 22 Ala. 612. 

Vol. 1 — 5 



66 REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 56. 

fix its value, and such a paper would be a special contract rather 
than a negotiable bill or note. 

§ 66. InBtrameiits payable in bank bills or in currency. — Strictly 
pursuing this principle, it has been held in England that a note 
payable " in cash, or Bank of England notes," or payable " in 
Bank of England notes,'' was not negotiable under the statute 
of Anne, though the bills of that bank were at any time redeem- 
able in money.*^ In Pennsylvania, this ruling was followed 
upon an instnunent payable in " current bank bills or notes," 
the court remarking that " it was payable in more than forty 
kinds of paper of different value." *® The Supreme Court of 
the United States has applied it where the note was payable in 
the " office notes of a bank." ^^ When the medium of payment 
is expressed to be '* good current money," or " current money," 
it is not objectionable, as legal tender money is intended; ^ but 
if it be " in currency " simply, the paper is not negotiable, as 
the term includes all varieties of the circulating medium.^ But 

17. See Rex v. Wilcox, Bay ley on Bills (6th ed.)* 11 (in cash or Bank of 
England notes); Ex parte Imeson, 2 Rose, 225 (Bank of England notes). 

18. McCormick v. Trotter, 10 Serg. & R. 94. 

19. Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Pet. 293. 

20. Wharton v. Morris, 1 Dall. 124. See the following cases where the in- 
struments were held negotiable: Graham v. Adams, 5 Ark. 261 (good current 
money of the State) ; Wilbum v. Greer, 6 Ark. 255 (Arkansas money) ; Black 
V. Ward, 27 Mich. 173; Searey v. Vance, Mart. & Y. 225 (Tennessee money) ; 
Chrysler v. Rendis, 43 N. Y. 209 (in gold coin). But contra, McCherd v. 
Ford, 3 T. B. Mon. 166. 

21. Lampton v. Haggard, 3 Mon. 149; Farwell v. Kennett, 7 Mo. 595; 
Mobile Bank v. Brown, 42 Ala. 108; Rindskoff v. Barrett, 11 Iowa, 172; "in 
cttrrent bills," Collins v. Lincoln, 11 Vt. 268; Ford v. Mitchell, 15 Wis. 304. 
And like decisions were rendered where the bill or note was payable '* in 
common currency of Arkansas," Dillard v. Evans, 4 Ark. 185; "in current 
bank paper" Campbell v. Weister, 1 Litt. 30; "tn notes receivable in bank,** 
Breckenridge v. Ralls, 4 Mon. 533 ; " in current bank notes," Gamble v. 
Hatton, Peck, 130; Kirkpatrick v. McCullough, 3 Humphr. 171; Whiteman 
V. Childress, 6 Humphr. 303; Simpson v. Moulders, 3 Caldw. 429; McDon- 
nell V. Keller, 4 Caldw. 258; "in Tennessee currency," 2 Yerg. 448; *' in 
Canada bills," Gray v. Worden, 29 Up. Can. Q. B. 536; "in bank hilUr 
Simpson v. Meneden, 3 Coldw. 429 ; " in Netc York funds or their equivalent y"* 
Hasbrook v. Palmer, 2 McLean, 10; "in current bank bills," Fry v. Rousseau, 
3 McLean, 106 ; " in foreign bills," Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. 245 ; " in paper 
medium," Lange v. Kohne, 1 McCord, 115; "in current bank notes," Little v. 
Phosnix Bank, 2 Hill, 425; Gray v. Donahoe, 4 Watts, 400. See Pardee v. Fish, 
60 N. Y. 265 ; " in Pennsylvania or Tfew York paper currencj/," Lieber v. 
Goodrich, 5 Cow. 186; "in current notes of the State of North CarolinOj** 



§ 56. CEBTAINTY AS TO THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT, 67 

the decisions^ as will be seen from the subjoined notes, are con- 
tradictory.^ In some cases it is held that the meaning of such 
phrases as " current funds " may be explained by parol evi- 
dence as to the understanding of the parties and that they may 
\ye shown to have meant money. ^ 
In business paper it is best to adhere to strict rules; and as 

certainty is of the first moment in commercial dealings, and 

I I ■ ■ .1 « 

Warren v. Brown, 64 X. C. 381 ; " m current funds of Pittsburg," Wright v. 
Hart, 44 Pa. St. 454; " in current funds/* ComweU v. Pumphrey, 9 Ind. 135; 
Haddock v. Woods, 46 Iowa, 433; Johnson v. Henderson, 76 N. C. 227; La- 
fayette Bank v. Ringel, 51 Ind. 393; Piatt v. Sauk County Bank, 17 Wis. 222; 
Undsey v. McClelland, 18 Wis. 481. 

22. In the following cases instruments expressed to be payable as indicated 
were held negotiable: ** in current funds" Shoemakers' Bank v. Street, 10 
Ohio (N. S.), 5; Bull v. Kasson, 123 U. S. 112; Laird v. SUte, 61 Md. 309, 
citing the text Contra in Texas Land Co. v. Carroll, 63 Tex. 52 ; ** in current 
Ohio hank notes/* Swetland v. Creigh, 15 Ohio, 118; ** in current funds of the 
State of Ohio," White v. Richmond, 16 Ohio, 5; " current hank notes of Cin- 
cinnati/* Morris V. Edwards, 1 Ohio, 80 ; " currency of this place/* Bugan v, 
Campbell, 1 Ohio, 47 ; " in funds current in the city of New York/* Lacy v. 
Holbrook, 4 Ala. 88 ; " current money of Alabama/* Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 
140; ** in good current money of this State (or in Ark4^nsas money)/* Graham 
v. Adams, 5 Ark. 261 ; Wilbum v. Greer, 1 Eng. 256 ; but otherwise if " in 
Arkansas money of the Fayetteville branch,** Hawkins v. Watkins, 5 Ark. 
481; in New York "in New York State bills or specie/' Keith v. Jones, 9 
Johns. 120; "in bank notes current in the city of Neio York/* Judah v. 
Harris, 19 Johns. 144; "in North Carolina bank notes/* Deberry v. Darnell, 
5 Yerg. 451 ; "in lawful current money of Pennsylvania/* Wharton v. Morris, 
1 Dall. 124 ; '* in foreign money/* Sanger v. Stimpson, 8 Mass. 260 ; " in cur- 
rency," Butler V. Paine, 8 Minn. 324; Hunt v. Divine, 37 111. 187; Swift v. 
Whitney, 20 IlL 144; Laughlin v. Marshall, 19 111. 390; Pom v. Famsworth, 
18 HI. 563; Drake v. Markle, 21 Ind. 433; Fry v. Dudley, 20 La. Ann. 368; 
Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 561; Phelps v. Town, 14 Mich. 374 (semble) ; 
Howe V. Hartness, 11 Ohio St. 449; " in currency of the State of Mississippi/* 
Mitchell V. Hewitt, 5 Smedes k M. 361 ; " in currency of Missouri/* Cockrell 
T. Kirkpatrick, 9 Mo. 688; " in New York State currency/* Ehle v. Chittenango 
Bank, 24 N. Y. 549; "in current bank notes/* Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265: 
Fleming V. Nail, 1 Tex. 246. A note for $1,000, payable " in levee bonds of 
the State of Arkansas at par** is not an undertaking for the payment of 
money but for the payment in such bonds absolute so that the payee on the 
maker's default is entitled to damages only to the extent of the value of 
such bonds and not to the sum of money named with interest. Johnson v. 
Docley, 65 Ark. 71, 44 S. W. 1032; Kampmann v. McCormick, 24 Tex. Civ. 
App. 462. 

23. Haddock v. Woods, 46 Iowa. 435; Huse v. Uamblin, 29 Iowa, 501; 
Hhner t. Branch Bank, 16 Iowa, 321. 



68 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 57. 

paper payable in fluctuating values is uncertain and delusive, we 
think sound judgment approves the doctrine of the text. Money 
alone is legal tender, and only the note which represents money 
should be held negotiable. It should be expressed simply as pay- 
able in dollars, which have a definite signification fixed by law.^ 

§ 57. It has been suggested that since Congress has declared, 
and the Supreme Court held, that the treasury notes of the 
United States shall be " legal tender " in discharge of debts, the 
term " in currency " should be construed to mean legal tender 
currency, and instruments so payable should be deemed nego- 
tiable. But " the very reverse of this proposition is true,'' as 
said in Iowa, in respect to a certificate of deposit payable in 
currency. And, continued Beck, J. : " It is evident that it was 
not intended that payment should be made in coin, or * legal 
tender' government notes. The holder of the paper could have 
demanded payment thereon in ^ legal tender ' money, without 
any words in the instrument indicating the currency in which 
payment should be made. * * * Some other medium of 
circulation is described by the word currency." * In Arkansas 
it has been held that a note payable " in greenback currency " was 
negotiable, because legal tender currency, and not national or 
other bank notes, was intended;^ and in New York it has been 
said by Church, Ch. J. : *^ The objection that the instrument is 
not a promissory note because payable in paper currency, is an- 
swered by the suggestion that this must be taken to refer to the 
legal tender paper currency which under the United States laws? 
and decisions is money." ^ The United States Supreme Court 
has held that a check payable " in current funds " is negotiable." 
National bank notes would be embraced by these words, and the 
decision is not in consonance with the precedents that require 

24. Omohundro v. Crump, 18 Gratt. 703. 

25. Huse v. Hamblin, 20 Iowa, 244. But see Fry v. Dudley, 20 La. Ann. 368. 
20. Burton v. Brooks, 25 Ark. 215. 

27. Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 158 (1876). 

28. Bull V. Kasson, 123 U. S. 112, Field, J., saying: *' Within a few years 
commencing with the first issue in this country of notes declared to have the 
quality of legal tender, it has been a common practice of drawers of bills of 
exchange or checks, or makers of promissory notes, to indicate whether tho 
same are to be paid in gold or silver, or in such notes ; and the term * current 
funds ' has been used to desiprnate any of these, all being current and declannl 
by positive enactment to be legal tender." Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 
302, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820. 



§ 58. CEBTAINTY AS TO THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT. 69 

negotiable paper to be payable in money. In England, Bank of 
England notes were made legal tender, but nevertheless a promise 
to pay in that medium was not considered a promissory note.^ 
And similar views were taken in Canada.^ 

§ 68. It is not necessary however that the money should be 
that current in the place of payment, or where the bill is drawn ; 
it may be in the money of any country whatever.*^ But it has 
been held that it is necessary that the instrument should express 
the specific denomination of money when it is payable in the 
money of a foreign country, in order that the courts may be able 
to ascertain its equivalent value; otherwise it is not negotiable. 
Thus in New York, where a note was given for a certain sum 
'• payable in Canada money," it was held not negotiable ; and the 
court said: 

" This view of the case is not incompatible with a bill or note 
payable in money of a foreign denomination, or any other denom- 
ination, being negotiable, for it can be paid in our own coin of 
equivalent value, to which it is always reduced by a recovery. 
A note payable in pounds, shillings, and pence, made in any 
country, is but another mode of expressing the amount in dollars 
and cents, and is so understood judicially. The course, there- 
fore, in an action on such an instrument, is to aver and prove the 
Talue of the sum expressed, in our own tenderable coin." ^ 

Intention, to be gathered from the face of the paper, according 
to fixed rules, is the test of negotiability, and we do not see how 
the idea of its possessing a negotiable quality is excluded by the 
mere fact that the denomination of foreign money is not set out. 
A case, remarkable for its learning and ability, decided by the 
Supreme Court of Michigan, adopts this view; and there it has 
been that a note payable " in Canada currency " is negotiable, 
the terms being equivalent to Canada money.*' 

89. Rex V. Wilcox, Bayley on Bills (6th ed.), H, 1 Ames on Bills and 
Xotes, 39. 

30. Gray v. Wordcn, 29 Up. Can. Q. B. 635. The paper was payable in 
Canada bills, which, by Stat. 29 & 30 Vict., chap. 10, were made legal tender, 
Wilson, J., saying: "They have no intrinsic value as coin. They represent 
only, and are the signs of value. 

31. Chitty on Bills [•ISS], 154, Story on Bills, S 43; Black v. Ward, 27 
Mich. 193; Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Wend. 71; King v. Hamilton, 12 Fed. 478, 
siting the text. 

32. Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Wend. 71. 

38. Black v. Ward, 27 Mich. 193 (1873), Campbell, J., saying: "A note 
payable in Canada currency means no more and no less than that it is payable 



70 BEQUISITES OF BILLS ANI> NOTES. §§ 59, 60. 



SECTION VL 

THE CONTRACT MUST BE ONLY FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONST. 

§ 69. In the sixth place it is essential to the negotiabilily of 
the bill or note that it purport to be only for the payment of 
money.** Such at least may be stated to be the general rule, 
for if any other agreement of a different character be engrafted 
upon it it becomes a special contract clogged and involved with 
other matters, and has been deemed to lose thereby its character 
as a commercial instrument. But at the present time we think 
that this general rule is subject to the qualification that if the 
superadded agreement do not impair the certainty of the promise 
to pay the certain amount named, but only facilitates the means 
of its collection, it does not in any degree destroy the negotia- 
bility of the instrument, but is embodied in the contract of all 
the parties and passes as an incident of the paper itself to every 
holder."* 

§ 60. In accordance with the general rule above stated, it has 
been held that if a note for a certain amount be given for the 
hire of a negro, to which is added, " said negro to be furnished 
with the usual quantity of clothing," was not a negotiable prom- 

in Caniida money at the Canada standard, and that it is governed as to the 
amount it calls for by the same rules as if it had been made in Canada, and 
payable in so many dollars, without containing any further direction." " It 
is evident the language was used to exclude the idea that it should be paid 
in dollars according to our paper standard, and to put it on the footing of a 
gold contract." " It is urged that this is superfluous, and that as every one 
is presumed to know the law, it would not have been put in except for some 
purpose which would change its legal import. The objection appears to us 
to be far-fetched and unreasonable. This case cited above sufficiently answers 
it. A very large proportion of the bonds and deeds drawn up in this country 
describe the money secured or paid as -lawful money of the United States,' 
when there can be no other lawful money in the republic, and when it is 
clearly superfluous." 

34. Fletcher v. Thompson, 55 N. H. 308; Humphrey v. Beckwith, 48 Mich. 
151; Edwards v. Ramsey, 30 Minn. 91; Mast v. Matthews, 30 Minn. 442: 
Stevens v. Johnson, 27 Minn. 172; Killam v. SSchoeps, 26 Kan. 312, citing 
the text; Continental Nat. Bank v. Wells, 41 N. W. 409; Ingham v. Dudley, 
60 Iowa, 16; Chapman v. Steiner, 5 Kan. App. 326, 48 Pac. 607, quoting text; 
Chandler v. Calvert, 87 Mo. App. 368. 

35. National Bank v. Gray, 18 S. C. 286, citing text. But see Wamn ▼. 
Gruwell, 5 Kan. App. 523, 48 Pac. 206. 



§ 60. CONTKA.CT ONLY FOK THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 71 

issoTj note, but a special contract for the hiring and clothing of 
the negro.^ And this seei^s to us clearly the correct doctrine, 
though the view has been taken that such a paper is negotiable, 
the obligation to pay the money only passing to an indorsee.'^ 
So it has been held that if the instrument be to pay money, and 
also "to deliver up horses and a wharf;"*® or to pay money 
" and take up a certain outstanding note," ^ it is not a negotiable 
note. So if it be to pay money " and all fines according to 
rule," it is not a negotiable note, and the additional words can- 
not be construed as insensible surplusage. " It is quite possi- 
ble," said Parke, B., " that they have a meaning, and may im- 
port that certain pecuniary fines or forfeitures are to be paid by 
the defendants; and, if so, this is certainly no promissory note 
within the statute, but is a specific agreement to do certain 
things." « 

So likewise where the following words were added the instru- 
ments were held special agreements and not negotiable : " If 
any dispute should arise about the sale of goods for which the 
note is given, it is to be void,*^ or it is ' only a security for all 
balances up to its amount.'** So if it provide that the payee is 
to receive less than the principal sum if it be paid before ma- 
turity.** So, where the promise was to pay H. a certain amount, 
adding, ^ and said H. is to build a bam and fence, and said P. 
(the promisor) is to have all the land back of the house.' " ** 
So, where the note contained a condition that if not paid when 
due, the penalty for which it was given should belong to the 
payee.*^ But a reservation of title to a chattel upon the face 
of a note given for its purchase price has been held not to impair 
its negotiability.'** Where the promise is coupled with a condi- 

36L Barnes v. Gorman, Rich. 207. 

37. Baxter v. Stewart, 4 Sneed, 213; Gaines v. Shelton, 47 Ala. 413; Wood- 
ruff, v. Miasissippi, 162 U. S. 291. 
Sa Martin v. Chauntry, 2 Stra. 1*271. 

39. Cook V. Satterlee, 6 Cow. 108. Or ** to pay the taxes on the property, 
Mseiaments, insurance, and waste." Donaldson v. Grant, 16 Utah, 231, 49 
Ptc. 779. 

40. Ayrey v. Feamsides, 4 M. & W. 168. 

41. Hartley v. Wilkinson, 4 Camph. 127. 

42. Leeds y. Lancashire, 2 Campb. 205. 

43. Fralick v. Norton, 2 Mich. 130. 

44. Fletcher v. Thompson, 55 N. H. 208. 

45. Wright v. Travers, 73 Mich. 494. 

46l Howard ▼. Simpkins, 70 Ga. 323; Burnley v. Tufto, 66 Miss. 48. 



/- 



2 AEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTSS. § 61. 



tion that the sale or removal of the property for which it was 
given shall cause the debt to mature at once, the objection pre- 
vails.*^ Where a note contained a provision making it in eflFect 
a chattel mortgage without power of sale before maturity, it *vas 
held negotiable, since the debt evidenced thereby was not subject 
to be diminished before maturity.*® 

In Rhode Island where there was a memorandum on the note 
" issued as collateral to A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co.^s draft ac- 
cepted by Hoyt, Sprague & Oo., No. 6806," the court considered 
it not negotiable because not payable at all events, it being 
evident that the payment of the drafts would at once discharge 
both the makers and indorsers of the note and render said note 
null and void.*® 

§ 61. Additions (1) of power to confew judgments; (2) of waivers 
of exemptions; and (3) of stipulations to pay collection or attorney's 
fees. — Sometimes it is stated in the note that (1) the promisor 
appoints the payee, or order, or holder to confess judgment for 
him when the note is payable; or (2) waives benefit of appraise^ 
ment laws, or homestead exemptions, where such laws or exemp- 
tions exist, or (3) stipulates for payment of collection and attor- 
ney's fees. The authorities differ as to the negotiability of such 
instruments; but the later cases maintain that they are negotiable, 
and the principle is becoming established that, if the note is in 
itself certain and perfe(?t without conditions, and there is merely 
superadded the provision or declaration that the payee or holder 
may confess judgment for the maker; or that certain rights are 
waived in respect to its collection, then the negotiability of the 
paper is not destroyed.*^ The leading case of Overton v. Tyler, 

47. First Nat. Bank v. Carson, 60 Mich. 433. 

48. Bank of Carroll v. Taylor, 67 Iowa, 573. 

49. American Nat. Bank y. Sprague, 14 R. I. 411. See po8t, S 150; Gibson 
V. Hawkins, 69 Ga. 354; Haskell v. Lambert, 16 Gray, 592. 

50. 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 147; Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164; Lyon 
V. Martin, 31 Kan. 412, citing the text; Hughitt v. Johnson, 28 Fed. 865. In 
Clements v. Hull, 35 Ohio St. 141, it was held that power to any attorney of 
record to appear and confess judgment in fpvor of any holder did not affect 
negotiability of the note, and might be executed in favor of any holder, even 
if he had only the equitable title. And where a promissory note contains 
a clause waiving '* all differences on the ground of any extension of the time 
of its payment, that may be given by its holders to them (the makers) cm* 
either of them," such stipulation destroys the negotiability of the note. See 
Merchants & Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Fraze, 9 Ind. App. 161, 36 N. K 378, 



§ 61, CONTBACT ONLY FOB THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 73 

3 Barr, 346, in which a power to confess judgment engrafted on 
the note was held to render it nonnegotiable," does not now 
seem to be followed by the State courts as a general rule ; and the 
declaration of Chief Justice Qibson in that case, that ^^ a nego- 
tiable bill or note is a courier without luggage/' is answered by the 
assertion that such provisions facilitate rather than incumber 
the circulation of such instruments. They are not luggage, but 
ballast. 



53 Am. St Rep. 341; Gilmore v. Hirst, 56 Kan. 626, 44 Pac. 603, citing text; 
Mumford v. Tolman, 167 Dl. 268, 41 N. E. 617. 

61. Zimmerman y. Anderson, 67 Pa. St. 421. In this case the following 
note was sued on by the indorsees against the maker: ** Township of Buifalo, 
March 25, 1868. $125.00. Six months after date 1 promise to pay to £. W. 
Lowe, or order, one hundred and twenty-five dollars, for yalue received, vrith 
interest, waiving the right of appeal, and of all valuation, appraisement, stay, 
snd exemption laws." Signed, Moses Anderson, and indorsed by £. W. Lowe. 
The defense was failure of consideration, grounded on the alleged non- 
negotiability of the note. But it was held negotiable, Read, J., saying: ** The 
paper in this case comes within all the definitions of the best text-writers of 
a promissory note, for it is a written promise by the defendant to pay to E. W. 
Lowe, or order, $125, six months after date, for value received, with interest, 
absolutely, and at all events. But it is urged that the words * waiving the 
right of appeal, and of all valuation, appraisement, stay and exemption laws,' 
destroys its negotiability. In what way? They do not contain any condition 
or contingency, but after the note falls due and is unpaid, and the maker is 
sued, facilitate the collection by waiving certain rights which he might 
exercise to delay or impede it. Instead of clogging its negotiability it adds 
to it, and gives additional value to the note. • • • These principles and 
eases clearly prove this to be a regular negotiable promissory note; but we 
are met by the case of Overton v. Tyler, in 3 Barr, 346, decided by this court 
a quarter of a century ago, which^ however, is plainly distinguished from the 
one before us. In Overton v. Tyler, the payment was fixed for a day named 
specifically in the instrument, with a regular power of attorney to confess 
judgment, upon which a judgment was entered on the 10th of March, and 
execution issued thereon on the 2d of June, one day after the money was 
payable, and the waivers which followed all related to the judgment thus 
entered two months and twenty-one days before the paper fell due. It is 
unnecessary to say how far this ruling is sustained by the authorities, for, 
if perfectly good and sound law, it does not touch the present case." While 
the court distinguishes this case from Overton v. Tyler, 3 Barr, 346, it draws 
a very fine distinction — one without a material difference, and it evidently 
does not regard that case with much favor. In Overton v. Tyler, the note 
ran: "For value received I promise to pay Francis Tyler and Levi West- 
brook, or bearer, one thousand dollars with interest, by the first day of June 
next And I do hereby authorize any attorney of any court of record in 
Pennsylvania to appear for me and confess judgment for the above sum to the 



74 REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 62. 



§ 62. Ad4ltio]i in hilli and notes of stipnlatioiu to pay 
or attorney's fees. — Quite frequently in recent years bills and 
notes are met with^ framed in other respects in the usual nego- 
tiable forms, but containing the additional stipulation on the part 
of the drawer or maker to pay collection or attorney's fees, and 
they have elicited from the courts various and conflicting deci- 
sions. The cases may be divided into four classes. 

' ■■ ■ k 

holder of this single bill, with costs of suit, hereby releasing all errors and 
waiving stay of execution, and the right of inquisition on real estate; also 
waiving the right to have any of my property appraised which may be levied 
upon by virtue of any execution issued for the above sum." Gibson, C. J.t 
said: "A negotiable bill or note is a courier without luggage. It is requisite 
that it be framed in the fewest possible words, and those importing the most 
certain and precise contract; and though this requisite be a minor one, it 
is entitled to weight in determining a question of intention. To be within 
the statute, it must be free from contingencies or conditions that would 
embarrass it in its course; for a memorandum to control it, though indorsed 
on it, would be incorporated with it, and destroy it. But a memorandum, 
which is merely directory or collateral, will not affect it. The warrant and 
stipulations incorporated vrith this note evince that the object of the parties 
was not a general, but a special one. Payment was to be made, not as is 
usual at so many days after date, but at a distant day certain; yet the 
negotiability of the note, if it had any, as well as its separate existence, was 
instantly liable to be merged in a judgment, and its circulation arrested by 
the debt being attached, as an incumbrance to the maker's land; and it was 
actually merged when it had nearly three months to run. Now, it is hard to 
conceive how the commercial properties of a bill or note can be extinguished 
before it has come to maturity. That is not all. A warrant to confess judg- 
ment, not being a mercantile instrument, or a legitimate part of one, but a 
thing collateral, would not pass by indorsement or delivery to a subsequent 
holder; and a curious question would be, whether it would survive as an 
accessory separated from its « principal, in the hands of the payee, for the 
benefit of his transferee, I am unable to see how it could authorize him to enter 
up judgment, for the use of another, on a note with which he had parted. 
But it may be said that his transfer would be a waiver of the warrant as a 
security for himself or any one else; and that subsequent holders w^ould take 
the note without it. The principle is certainly applicable to a memorandum 
indorsed after signing, or one written on a separate paper. But the appear- 
ance of a paper with such unusual stipulations incorporated with it would 
be apt to startle commercial men as to their effect on the contract of 
indorsement, and make them reluctant to touch it. All this shows that 
these parties could not have intended to impress a commercial character on 
the note, dragging after it, as it would, o, train of special provisions which 
would materially impede its circulation." See Sweeney v. Thickstun, 77 
Pa. St. 131. In Osbom v. Hawley, 19 Ohio 130, it was held that a power of 
attorney added to, and as part of, a note did not affect its negotiability. 



§ 62. OONTKA.CT ONLY FOB THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 75 

FirsL Those which sustain both the validity of the stipulation 
and the negotiability of the instrument.^ 

58. Oppenheimer v. Bank, 97 TeniL 19, 36 S. W. 705, 66 Am. St. Rep. 778, 
quoting and approying text. See also recent case of Tyler v. Walker, 101 
Tenn. 306, 47 S. W. 424. After quoting and approving text, the Supreme 
Coort of Or^on said: ''A careful examination has satisfleci^ us that the 
weight of authority, and especially the more recent decisions is strongly in 
favor of the doctrine that the negotiability of a promissory note is in no way 
affected by a stipulation for a reasonable attorney's fee" (citing numerous 
eases). Benn v. Kutzschan, 24 Oreg. 28, 32 Pac. 763. On the other hand, 
the Oregon Supreme Court, in an earUer case, held that a provision in a 
note to pay a stipulated allowance of 10 per cent, attorney's fees, was void, 
as oppressive and unconscionable, the court stating that a provision for *' a 
reasonable attorney's fee" was unobjectionable. Levens v. Briggs, 21 Oreg. 
333, 28 Pac. 15; Second Nat. Bank v. Auglin, 6 Wash. 403, 33 Pac. 1056; 
Shenandoah Nat. Bank v. Marsh, 89 Iowa, 273, 56 N. W. 458, 48 Am. St. Rep. 
381; Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah, 306, 49 Pac. 777, 62 Am. St. Rep. 934; 
First Nat. Bank v. Slaughter, 98 Ala. 602, 14 So. 545, 39 Am. St. Rep. 88; 
%ahan v. First Nat. Bank of Clarksville, 72 Miss. 266, 16 So. 203; Clifton 
T. Bank of Aberdeen, 75 Miss. 929, 23 So. 394, text cited; Bank of Com- 
merce V. Fuqua, 11 Mont. 285, 28 Pac. 291, 28 Am. St. Rep. 461, text cited; 
Chandler v. Kennedy, 8 S. Dak. 56, 65 N. W. 439; Stark v. Olsen, 44 Nebr. 
646, 63 N. W. 437; Ramsey v. Thomas, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 431, 38 S. W. 259; 
Christopherson v. Conmion Council, 117 Mich. 125, 75 N. W. 445. Sperry v. 
Horr, 32 Iowa, 184 (1871), note to A. S. J. k Co., or bearer, for |100, vrith 
10 per cent, interest until paid, and stipulation added: "If not paid when 
due, and suit is brought thereon, I hereby agree to pay collection and at- 
torney's fees therefor." Suit against maker. Note held negotiable. Heard ▼. 
Dubuque Bank, 8 Nebr. 10 (1878), note similar to above. In Deitrich ▼. 
Baylie, 23 La. Ann. 767 (1871), there was added: "Should the note not be 
paid at maturity, and judicial proceedings be instituted, the lawyer's fee 
fixed at 10 per cent., to be at the cost of the maker." Held negotiable. Seaton 
T. Scovill, 18 Kan. 435 (1877), agreement added to pay "costs of collecting, 
including reasonable attorney's fees, if suit be instituted on this note ; " suit 
against maker and indorser. Note held negotiable. Overton v. Mathews, 
35 Ark. 147 (1879), note payable "with interest at the rate of 10 per cent., 
and 10 per cent, attorney's fees if collected by suit." Held negotiable. So 
m Trader v. Chichester, 41 Ark. 242 ; Exchange Bank v. Tuttle, 7 Law. Rep. 
Annot. 447 (New Mexico), (stipulation held valid) ; Schlesinger v. Arline, 31 
Fed. 648; Meacham v. Pinson, 60 Miss. 226; Hamilton Gin Co. v. Sinker, 74 Tex. 
52; Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30 Minn. 311, citing the text; Harris 
Mfg. Co V. Anfinson, 31 Minn. 182; Roberts v. Snow, 43 N. W. 241; Peyser 
V. (k>le, 11 Oreg. 39. But held in Oregon that, if the fee appear to be un- 
reasonable, the court will not modify the amoimt and then enforce it as 
modifled. Balfour v. Davis, 14 Oreg. 47; Kimball v. Moir, 15 Oreg. 427; Barton 
▼. Farmers' Bank, 11 West. 389 (HI.). Numerous cases have arisen on 
tins question in Indiana. In Smith v. Muncie Nat. Bank, 29 Ind. 159 (1867), 
niit was brought against drawen, indorsers, and aooeptor of a bill which 



76 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 62. 

These cases consider that the stipulation is valid because it is 
an indemnification assured by the maker against the consequences 
of his own act, for, unless in default, he will not have to pay the 

contained an agreement on its face to pay attorney's fees. Held, that aU 
parties were bound for the amount of the bill and the attorney's fees. In 
Smith V. Silters, 32 Ind. 321 (1860), suit was brought against maker of a 
note which promised to pay a certain sum and reasonable attorney's fees. 
Held not usurious, but " so eminently just that there should be no hesitation 
in enforcing it." In First Nat. Bank v. Canatsey, 34 Ind. 149 (1870), drawers, 
indorsers, and acceptor were held liable where the bill agreed to pay reason- 
able attorneys fees. In Johnson v. Crossland, 34 Ind. 344 (1870), it was 
held that where a note agreed to pay attorney's fees if suit be instituted 
thereon, they might be recovered in an action on the note by the person 
entitled to sue for the debt ; and that the attorney need not be a party plain- 
tiff. In Stoneman v. Pyle, 36 Ind. 103 (1871), the subject was reviewed, and 
Worden, J., said, in delivering the opinion of the court: "As the note was 
payable at a bank in this State, it is governed by the law merchant, and 
the holder thereof is entitled to all the rights of a holder of commercial 
paper, unless the clause in the note stipulating for the payment of attorney's 
fees, in case suit should be commenced thereon, takes it out of that class of 
paper. It is earnestly urged by counsel for the appellee, that the provision 
above indicated makes the amount of the note uncertain, and therefore that 
it does not come within the legal requirements of commercial paper. It may 
be conceded tluut a note, in order to be placed upon the footing of bills of 
exchange, must be for a sum certain; for in no other way can the maker 
know precisely what he is bound to pay, or the holder what he is entitled to 
demand. But the note in question, if paid at maturity, or after maturity, but 
before suit brought thereon, is for a sum certain. On the maturity of the 
note the maker knew precisely what he was bound to pay, and the holder 
what he was entitled to demand. In the commercial world, commercial paper 
is expected to be paid promptly at maturity. The stipulation for the pay- 
ment of attorney's fees could have no force except upon a violation of his 
contract by the defendant. Had the defendant kept his contract, and paid 
the note at maturity, or afterw^ard, but before suit, he would have been re- 
quired to pay no attorney's fees, nor would there have been any difficulty 
as to the extent of his obligation. We see no reason, on principle or author- 
ity, or on grounds of public policy, for holding that such a stipulation de- 
stroys the commercial character of paper otherwise having that character. 
See Smith v. Silvers, 32 Ind. 321. The case is quite analogous to a class of 
cases on the subject of usury. Says Mr. Parsons: * So, if the borrower 
agrees to pay the sum borrowed at a time certain, or on demand, with lawful 
interest, and if he fail to do so, so much more by way of penalty; even if it 
be called extra interest, this is not such usury as would affect the contract, 
because the borrower has the right to pay the principal and avoid the pen- 
alty.' 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 413, 414. So here the defendant had 
the right to pay the face of the note when due, and avoid the attorney's fees. 
As long as the note retained the peculiar characteristics of commercial paper, 
viz., up to the time of its maturity and dishonor, the amount to be paid on 



§ 62. CONTKA.CT ONLY FOB THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 77 

additional amount;*^ that it is consonant with public policy be- 
cause it adds to the value of the paper; has a tendency to lower 
the rate of discount, not only because it promises less expensive 
collection, but bears evidence of a greater degree of confidence 
on the part of the maker in his ability to pay without suit ;^ and 
that it does not impair the negotiability of the instrument, for 
the reasons : that the sum to be paid at maturity is certain ; that 
commercial paper is expected to be paid promptly; that if so 
paid, no element of uncertainty enters into the contract; that it 

the one hand, and recovered on the other, was fixed and definite." In Wjant 
V. Porttorff, 37 Ind. 512 (1871), it was held that where suit is brought on a 
note promising to pay attorney's fees on collection, there must be proof of 
their value to authorize a finding therefor. In Hubbard v. Harrison, 38 Ind. 
325 (1871), it was held that the promise in the note to pay attorney's fees 
might be enforced against the indorser. In Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164 
(1876), indorsee sued maker on note which agreed to pay a reasonable at- 
torney's fee if suit be instituted. Held valid. In Indiana it has been provided 
by statute (1 Rev. Stat. 1876, p. 149), "that any and all agreements to pay 
attorney's fees, depending upon any condition therein set forth, and made 
part of any bill of exchange, acceptance, draft, promissory note, or other 
iK>Titten evidence of indebtedness, are hereby declared illegal and void, pro- 
vided that nothing in this section shall be construed as applying to contracts 
made previous to the taking effect of this act." After this act it was held 
that the stipulation in a note to pay attorney's fees " if suit be brought," 
was conditional and void; Churchman v. Martin, 54 Ind. 380 (1876). But if 
such stipulation were unconditional, it would be valid. Brown v. Barber, 59 
Ind. 533 (1877); Smock v. mpley, 62 Ind. 81 (1878). See also Garver v. 
Pontius, 66 Ind. 191 (1879); Maxwell v. Morehart, 66 Ind. 301 (1879). In 
Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Rasmussen, 1 Dak. 60 (1875), suit was brought on 
note, payable to R. B. or bearer, for a certain sum and interest, and "ten 
dollars attorney's fees if action is commenced herein." Held valid and 
negotiable. But negotiability destroyed by stipulation for payment of reatan- 
oUe fees, the amount being uncertain. Garretson v. Purdy, 3 Dak. Ter. 178 ; 
Jones V. Radatz, 27 Minn. 240; Hardin v. Olson, 14 Fed. 705; YiTnt Nat. Bank 
V. Larsen, 60 Minn. 206; Peterson v. State Bank, 47 N. W. 368; Howestein 
T. Barnes, U. S. C. C, Kan., May, 1879, Foster, J., reported in 29 Am. Rep. 
406; Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Moreno, U. S. C. C, Oreg., Aug., 1879, 
reported in 29 Am. Rep. 406, Deady, J., saying upon the question considered, 
tnd as to the views of the text, that they ** are more in accordance with the 
advanced views of the present time." 

53. Moore v. Staser, 6 Ind. App. 364, 32 N. E. 563. 33 N. E. 665. And 
vhere the amount of the attorney's fees is not specified in the note, the 
holder must prove affirmatively what fee would be reasonable in order to 
jnstify recovery. See Schofield v. Starnes, 5 Ind. App. 4, 31 N. E. 480: Bill- 
ingsley v. Dean, II Ind. 331 (1858). 

54. Heard v. Dubuque Bank, 8 Nebr. 10 (1878) ; Stapleton v. Louisville 
Banking Co., 95 Ga. 802, 23 S. E. 81, citing text. 



78 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTBS. § 62. 

ceases to be negotiable, in the full sense of the term, if not paid 
at maturity, and that the additional agreement relates rather to 
the remedy upon the note, if a legal remedy be pursued, than to 
the sum which the maker is bound to pay; and that it is not 
different in its character from a cognovit, which, when attached 
to promissory notes, does not destroy their negotiability." 

Second, The second class of cases enforce the stipulation, but 
deny the negotiability of the instrument.*^ They rest on the 

^ — ^- . , ^ 1 1 ■ 

55. Sperry v. Horr, 32 Iowa, 184 (1871); Stoneman v. Pyle, 35 Ind. 103 
(1871); Proctor v. Baldwin, 82 Ind. 370. FoUowing the reasoning underlying 
the classes of cases referred to in the text and upholding the validity and 
negotiability of contracts containing such provisions, the Supreme Court of 
Washington has decided that attorney's fees are not collectible except in 
case of default in the payment of the principal debt, and that a suit to col- 
lect an instalment of interest due does not warrant an allowance of a fee 
to the attorney for plaintiff. Merrill v. Muzzy, 11 Wash. 16, 39 Pac. 279; 
Stapleton v. Louisville Banking Co., 95 Ga. 802, 23 S. £. 81, citing text; 
Nicely et al. v. Winnebago Nat. Bank of Rockford, 111., 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 
N. E. 476, quoting text; First Nat. Bank v. Slaughter, 98 Ala. 602, 14 So. 
545, 39 Am. St. Rep. 88; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton Mfg. Co., 3 C. C. A. 
1, 52 Fed. 191; Dorsey v. Wolff, 142 Ul. 589, 32 N. E. 495, 34 Am. St. Rep. 
99, quoting text. 

56. Woods V. North, 84 Pa. St. 410 (1877). In Sweeney v. Thickstun, 77 
Pa. St. 131 (1874), the note contained a warrant to any attorney of record 
to confess judgment for principal and interest, and 5 per cent, collection fees, 
with costs of suit, release of errors, and without stay of execution. Held 
not negotiable, **by reason of the warrant of attorney contained in it." In 
Johnston v. Speer, 92 Pa. St. 227 (1879), Alb. L. J., vol. 23, p. 13, it was 
held that a note for a certain sum and interest, " with per cent, attor- 
ney's commission if collected by legal process," was not negotiable, for, in any 
event, oral testimony would be necessary, but that such an agreement could 
not be regarded as a penalty, but as an agreed compensation for expense 
and trouble in collecting the note. In First Nat. Bank v. Gay, 63 Mo. 33 
(1876), the note agrees to pay, if put in attorney's hands for collection, an 
additional sum of 10 per cent, as attorney's fee. Held not a promissory note, 
and not negotiable because a portion of the amount to be paid depended 
upon the contingency whether the other portion was paid at maturity. In 
First Nat. Bank v. Bynum, 84 N. C. 24 (1881), Alb. L. J., vol. 13, p. 202, the 
note agreed to pay '*all counsel fees and expenses in collecting if it is sued 
on or placed in the hands of an attorney for collection." Held, that part of 
the amount was imcertain, and the paper not negotiable. In Samstag v. Con- 
ley, 64 Mo. 477 (1877), note promised to pay reasonable attorney's fee if 
suit be brought thereon. Held not negotiable. See also Storr v. Wakefield, 
71 Mo. 622 (1880) ; First Nat. Bank v. Marlow, 71 Mo. 618 (1880) ; First Nat. 
Bank v. Gay, 71 Mo. 627 (1880). In Jones v. Raditz, 27 Minn. 240 (1880), 
Cent. L. J., vol. 11, p. 512, the note promised to pay a reasonable attorney's 
fee if suit were instituted. Held not negotiable and that the requisite cer- 



§ 62. CONTKACT ONLY FOB THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 79 

considerations as stated in Pennsylvania, by Sharswood, J* (in 
Woods V. North), where to the note was added, "' and five per 
cent collection fees if not paid when due," that " it is a neces- 
sary quality of negotiable paper, that it should be simple, certain, 
unconditional and not subject to any contingency. ♦ ♦ * 
Interest and costs of protest after nonpayment at maturity are 
necessary l^al incidents of the contract, and the insertion of 
them in the body of the note would not alter its negotiability. 
Neither does a clause waiving exemption, for that in no way 
touches the implicity and certainty of the paper. But a col- 
lateral agreement as here, depending too, as it does, upon its 
reasonableness, to be determined by the verdict of a jury, is 
entirely different" 

Third. The third class of cases maintain the negotiability of 
the instrmnent, but regard the stipulation as penal and void. 
They proceed on the ground that the paper is negotiable, because 
as long as current the amount contemplated to be paid is certain, 
and that after that its negotiable office is performed; but that 



tainty in negotiable paper must continue " untU the obligation is discharged." 
In Eyrich v. Capital State Bank (Miss.), 6 So. 615, a stipulation to pay "rea- 
sonable attorney's fees," was held valid without adverting to the question of 
negotiability. In Morgan v. Kdwards, S. C. of Wis., Dec, 1881, reported in 
Cent L. J. of Jan. 13, 1882, vol. 14, p. 33, the note was payable with '* all ex- 
penses, including attorney's fees, incurred tn collecting." Held not negotiable, 
the court pointing out that the additional amounts were not payable only 
upon the contingency of default in payment at maturity. Maryland Fertiliz- 
ing Co. V. Newman, 60 Md. 584, 45 Am. Rep. 750; Bowie v. Hall, 69 Md. 434; 
SsTings Bank v. Strother, 28 S. C. 504; McCoy v. Green, 83 Mo. 033; Bank 
V. Wheeler, 75 HI. 546; Adams v. Seaman, 82 Cal. 637; Chase v. Whitmore, 
68 Cal 545; Garretson v. Purdy, 3 Dak. Ter. 180; First Nat. Bank v. Larsen, 
60 Wis. 211. Where note stipulates for ** reasonable attorney's fees," held 
not negotiable. Peterson v. Stoughton State Bank, 78 Wis. 113, 47 N. W. 368, 
citing First Nat. Bank v. Larsen, 60 Wis. 206, 19 N. W. 67. See also Kimball 
r. Mellon, 80 Wis. 133, 48 N. W. 1100; Continental Nat. Bank v. McGeoch, 
73 Wis. 332, 41 N. W. 409; Vipond v. Townsend, 88 Wis. 285, 60 N. W. 430; 
^Wester Beckley Co. v. Alewine, 48 S. C. 308, 26 8. E. 607; Lockwood v. 
Undiey, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 396; Oyler et al. v. McMurray, 7 Ind. App. 645, 
34 y. £. 1004, citing text; Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 412 (1898), 40 Am. Rep. 
128; Qark v. Barnes, 58 Mo. App. 667; First Nat. Bank v. Babcock, 94 Cal. 
96, 29 Pbc. 415, 28 Am. St. Rep. 94; First Nat. Bank v. Falkenhan, 94 Cal. 
141, 29 Pac. 866; Creasy v. Gray, 88 Mo. App. 454; Kendall v. Parker, 103 
CaL 319, 37 Pac. 401, 42 Am. St. Rep. 117; Haber v. Brown, 101 Cal. 445, 36 
Pie. 1035; flndlav v. Pott, 131 Cal. 385, 63 Pac. 694. 



80 REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 62a. 

the insertion of such provisions tends to encourage litigation, to 
oppress debtors, and is against the policy of the law and void.** 
Fourth, The fourth class of cases hold that the stipulation to 
pay the additional amount renders the transaction usurious, and 
subjects the instrument to the operation of the statutes against 
usury.^® 

§ 62a. Considerations in favor of negotiability — Such instru- 
ments should, we think, be upheld as n^otiable. They are not 
like contracts to pay money and do some other thing. They are 
simply for the payment of a certain sum of money at a certain 
time, and the additional stipulations as to attorney's fees can 
never go into effect if the terms of the bill or note are complied 
with. They are therefore incidental and ancillary to the main 
engagement, intended to assure its performance, or to compensate 
for trouble and expense entailed by its breach. At maturity, 
negotiable paper ceases to be negotiable in the fuU commercial 
sense of the term, as heretofore explained,^ though it still passes 
from hand to hand by the negotiable forms of transfer; and it 
seems paradoxical to hold that instruments evidently framed as 
bills and notes are not negotiable during their currency, because 

57. Gaar v. Louisville Banking Co., 11 Bush, 1S2 (1874), not held 
negotiable and stipulation void; Witherspoon v. Musselman, 14 Bush, 
214 (1878). In Bullock v. Taylor, 39 Mich. 138 (1878), agreement added to 
note to pay $15 attorney's fees above all taxable costs. Held stipulation 
void because susceptible of being made the instrument of the most grievous 
wrong. Myer v. Hart, 40 Mich. 517 (1879). See Kemp v. Claus, 8 Nebr. 24; 
Boozer v. Anderson, 42 Ark. 168; Wright v. Travers, 73 Mich. 494, holding 
the stipulation void. So also Altman v. Fowler, 70 Mich. 58; Altman v. Rit- 
tershoeffer, 68 Mich. 287, and Cayuga Nat. Bank v. Purdy, 56 Mich. 6, holding 
the note nonnegotiable. Clark v. Tanner, 100 Ky. 275. Held, in this case 
that where a note is executed in Tennessee and stipulates for the payment 
of an attorney's fee, if resort to law is necessary to collect it, such a stipu- 
lation, although enforceable under the laws of Tennessee, ^^ill not be enforced 
in this State where such contracts are held to be contrary to the policy of 
our laws and absolutely void. Comity should not and does not require a 
contract made in one State to be enforced by the courts of another State 
that treats similar contracts made therein as absolutely void. Rizey v. 
Pearre, 89 Va. 113; Ronald v. Bank, 90 Va. 813. 

58. Dow V. Updike, 11 Nebr. 95, 7 N. W. 185 (1881); State v. Taylor, 10 
Ohio, 378 (1841); Shelton v. Gill, 11 Ohio, 417; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. 
Sevier, 14 Fed. 662. If the stipulation is held void, the objection to the 
validity of the instrument is removed. Maynard v. Mier, 85 Ind. 317 ; Tinsley 
v. Hoskins, 111 N. C. 340, 16 S. E. 174, 32 Am. St. Rep. 801. 

59. Dorsey v. Wolff, 142 111. 589, 32 N. E. 495, 34 Am. St. Rep. 99, citing 
text. See ante, |§ 1, la. 



§ 62a. CONTRACT ONLY FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 81 

when they cease to be current they contain a stipulation to defray 
the expenses of collection.^ 

Such stipulations do not, we think, render such instruments 
usurious. The additional amounts are in consideration of addi- 
tional trouble and expense inflicted on the holder, and not exces- 
sive interest for the loan or forbearance of money.®* 

If the additional stipulations be regarded as in the nature of 
I)enalties, and therefore void, they would simply be surplusage, 
and would not impair the negotiability of the paper. And this 
is the view which commends itself, as it seems to us, to judicial 
favor.® Unless there be some statute under which such stipu- 
lations are permissive, it certainly tends to the oppression of 
debtors to sanction their incorporation in commercial instru- 
ments; and they are therefore against the policy of the law and 
vdid. But when the added stipulation is deemed valid, and the 
UU or note negotiable, such stipulation becomes a part of the 
acceptor's or indorser's contract,®* and need not be sued for by the 
attorney but are recoverable by the holder of the instrument.** 
When the amount of fees is fixed by a certain percentage, or cer- 

60. Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 17; Tyler v. Walker, 101 Tenn. 306, 47 
& W. 424; Salisbury y. Stewart, 16 UUh, 308, 49 Pac. 777, 62 Am. St. Rep. 934, 
citing and approving text; Sylvester Bleckley Co. v. Ale wine, 48 S. C. 306, 26 
S. S. 609, quoting with approval the text ; Stapleton y. Louisville Banking Co., 
d5 Ga. 802, 23 S. E. 81, quoting text; Rouyer v. Miller, 16 Ind. App. 519, 44 
K. E. 61, 45 N. E. 674; aifton v. Bank of Aberdeen, 75 Miss. 929, 23 So. 394, 
text dted; Hunter v. Clarke, 184 HI. 158, 56 N. £. 297, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160. 

61. Barton v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 122 HI. 352; Moore v. Staser, 6 Ind. 
App. 364, 32 N. E. 663, 33 N. E. 665. 

68. Hamilton Gin Co. v. Sinker, 74 Tex. 52, citing the text. See Ward 
V. Coraett, 91 Va. 676, 22 S. E. 494, case of alleged usury. In Rixey v. Pearre, 
S9 Va. 117, 15 S. E. 498 (1892), the court, by Lewis, i>., said: *' in each of the 
negotiable notes held by the bank, there is a stipulation ' to pay on default 
of payment at maturity 10 per cent, on the face of this note for attorney's 
fee for collection.' This was held by the Circuit Court (of Fauquier county) 
a penalty, and as such not enforceable, and in this view we concur." To the 
same effect, see Ronald v. Bank of Princeton, 90 Va. 813, 20 S. E. 780 (1894). 

68. Smith v. Muncie Nat. Bank, 29 Ind. 158; Hubbard v. Harrison, 38 Ind. 
323; First Nat. Bank v. Canatsey, 34 Ind. 334; Bank v. Ellis, 2 Fed. 44; Tinsley 
T. HoBkins, 111 N. C. 340, 16 S. E. 174, 32 Am. St. Rep. 801, citing text. 

64. Johnson v. Crossland, 34 Ind. 334; Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164; 
Bank v. Elis, 2 Fed. 44 {Contra, Ware v. City Bank, 59 Ga. 848) ; Adams v. 
Addington, 16 Fed. 92, citing the text; Bank of British N. Am. v. Ellis, 6 
^wy. 98, citing the text. But see Jones v. Smith, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 26 
S. W. 240; Borsey v. Wolf, 142 HL 589, 32 N. E. 495, 34 Am. St. Rep. 99, 
quoting text. 

Vol- 1 — 6 



82 BBQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 63. 

tain sum, as in many cases,®^ the objection to negotiability of the 
paper becomes extremely technical and sophistical, if the validity 
of the additional stipulation is supported, and it is only when 
their amount is left undetermined that such objection seems to be 
forcible. The holder, it has been held, must prove the amount 
of the attorney's fees in order to recover them.^ 

SECTION VII. 

DELIVEEY. 

§ 63. In the seventh place the instmment must be delivered. — 
Delivery is the final step necessary to perfect the existence of any 
written contract, and therefore as long as a bill or note remains 
in the hands of the drawer or maker it is a nullity.^ And even 
though it be placed by the drawer or maker in the hands of his 
agent for delivery, it is still undelivered as long as it remains in 
his hands, and may be recalled ; and, while there, the payee has 
no right to it, unless it be wrongfully withheld by the agent,* 
If the agent to whom a note id delivered, to be issued on condition, 
refuses to return it to the party who has executed it upon the 

65. Sperry v. Horr, 32 Iowa, 184, 10 per cent.; Dietrich v. Baylie, 23 La. 
Ann. 767, 10 per cent. ; Overton v. Mathews, 36 Ark. 147, 10 per cent. ; Farm- 
ers' Nat. Bank v. Rasmussen, 1 Dak. 60, § 10, and cases cited ante, § 62. 

ea Wyant v. Pattorf, 37 Ind. 512; Lindley v. SuUivan, 133 Ind. 688, 32 
K. E. 738, 33 N. E. 561 ; Orr v. Sparkman, 120 Ala. 9, 23 So. 829. See Hop- 
kins V. Halliburton & Parr, 6 Tex. Gv. App. 451, 25 S. W. 1005. But in 
Illinois recovery cannot be had in same action. Dearlove v. Edwards, 166 
111. 619, 46 N. E. 1081. But not where judgment is procured by default. 
Alexander v. McDow, 108 Cal. 25, 41 Pac. 24. 

67. Bailey v. Taber, 5 Mass. 286; Marvin v. McCullum, 20 Johns. 288; Free- 
man V. Ellison, 37 Mich. 459; Lansing v. Caine, 2 Johns. 300; Woodford v. 
Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82; Ward v. Chum, 18 Gratt. 801; Hopper v. Eiland, 21 Ala. 
714; Richards v. Darst, 61 HI. 141; Roberts v. Bethell, 12 C. B. 778; Cox v. 
Troy, 5 B. & Aid. 474; Howe v. Ould, 28 Gratt. 7 ; Bartlett v. Same, 28 Gratt. 7; 
Devries v. Shumate, 53 Md. 216; Smith v. Foster, 41 N. H. 216; Dexter Sav. 
Bank v. Copeland, 77 Me. 269; McFarland v. Sikes, 54 Conn. 250; Palmer v. 
Poor, 121 Ind. 138, citing the text; Purviance v. Jones, 120 Ind. 164, citing the 
text; Stringer v. Adams, 98 Ind. 539; Morris v. Morton, 14 Nebr. 360, dting 
the text; Mattix v. Leach, 16 Ind. App. 113; Nicely et al. v. Winnebago Nat. 
Bank of Rockford, 111., 18 Ind. App. 30, 47 N. E. 476, citing text; Johnson v. 
Eaton, 51 Kan. 708, 33 Pac. 597. 

68. Thompson on Bills, 90-91; The King v. Lambton, 5 Price, 428; Byles 
t*146], 265; Edwards on Bills, 186; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 48-M; 
Devries v. Shumate. 53 Md. 216. 



§ 63a. DELIVEBY. 83 

failure of that condition, such party may restrain him from 
its negotiation, and compel the cancellation of his signature 
thereon.® If he wrongfully delivers the note the maker is not 
boimd, unless it comes to the hands of a bona fide holder under 
the rules entitling him to protection.^^ It is not necessary to 
aver the delivery of a bill or note, for the averment that a bill 
was drawn or a note made includes the idea of a delivery, with- 
out which the drawing or making is not complete. ^^ So essential 
is delivery, that it has been held that where a promissory note, 
ihe writing of which was unknown to the grantee, lay in the 
grantor's possession, and was found among his papers after 
death, the payee could not claim or sue upon it f^ and though such 
a note should be found, accompanied with written directions to 
deliver it to the payee, the payee will still have no right of action, 
unless the directions be valid as a testament.^* 

§ 63a. Confltmctive delivery. — It is to be observed however 
that delivery may be constructive as well as actual, by manual 
passing of the instrument. A direction to a third person who 
is in actual custody thereof, to hold it subject to the payee's or 
transferee's order ; or an order to the depositary to deliver it, or 
a delivery to a third person for the payee without condition,^* is 
sufficient in legal contemplation.^^ Where the plaintiff's bankers 
indorsed a note to him, and put it in an envelope with his papers, 
at the same time, making appropriate entries of the transaction 

^ ■ _ I !■ Ml II I — -- - I ■!■ ■! I M ■ ■ J. 

09. Devries t. Shumate, 53 Md. 212; Eppert v. Hall, 133 Ind. 41S, 31. N. E. 
74, 32 N. E. 713, citing the text; Gro«8 v. Arnold, 177 111. 575, 52 N. E. 867. 

70. Ware v. Smith, 62 Iowa, 169; Mercer County v. Life & Trust Co., 19 
C. C. A. 44. 72 Fed. 623, citing text. 

71. Churchill v. Gardner, 7 T. R. 596; Smith v. McQure, 5 East, 477; Bin- 
ney t. Plumley, 5 Vt. 600; Peets v. Bratt, 6 Barb. 662; Chester, etc., R. Co. 
T. Lickiss, 72 HI. 521; Black v. Duncan, 60 Ind. 522; Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn. 
S«, 29 Am. Rep. 242; Smith v. Thurston, 8 Ind. App. 105, 35 N. E. 620; Bank 
r. Simmons, 43 W. Va. 79, 27 S. E. 299; Welch v. Dameron, 47 Mo. App. 
S21, citing text. 

72. Diaher v. Disher, 1 P. Wms. 204, Chitty, Jr., 230. 

73. Gough T. Findon, 7 Exch. 48; Gammon Theological Seminary v. Bobbins, 
128 Ind. 85, 27 N. E. 341 ; Taylor v. Harmison, 179 111. 137, 53 N. E. 684. 

74. Gordon v. Adams, 127 111. 226; School District v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 
672, 40 S. W. 656, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576, citing text. 

75. Howe V. Quid, 28 Gratt. 7 ; Bartlett v. Same, 28 Gratt. 7 ; Fisher v. Brad- 
f<ffd, 7 Greenl. 28: Richardson v. Lincoln, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 201; Mitchell v. 
Byrne, 6 Rich. 171. In Howe, Knox & Co. v. Quid & Carrington, 28 Gratt., it ap- 
peared that Samuel Strong, the owner of a note executed to him by Samuel 



84 REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. §§ 64^ 65. 

on their books, it was held a sufficient delivery to him; and that a 
subsequent assignment of the bankers could not defeat it J^ 

§ 64. If the party who has signed or indorsed the instrument 
die before delivery, it is a nullity, and cannot be delivered by his 
personal representative;^ but if advances had been made on the 
faith of a delivery, then the promisee or indorsee would be enti- 
tled to a delivery J® 

It is said by Mr. Chitty, in respect to a bill, that delivery (by 
the acceptor) is not essential to vest the l^al interest in the 
payee.™ But the doctrine sustained by the authorities goes only 
to the extent that if the drawee actually accepts the bill, and 
improperly detains it in his hands, an averment that the bill was 
accepted is sufficient, without averment of a delivery by the 
acceptor.«> 

§ 66. Whenever a bill or note is found in the hands of the 
payee, it will be presumed that it was delivered to him,** and that 
the delivery took place on the day of its date, if it be dated,® and, 

Myers, indorsed it, and deposited it with the First National Bank of Richmond, 
Va.^ as collateral for a loan obtained from the bank by Betz, Toungaling & 
Byer. Strong sold the note to Ould, and gave him an order on the bank for it, 
who at once presented the order at the bank, but was informed that the presi- 
dent was out of town. A few days afterward the president informed him that 
the debt for which the note was pledged was nearly paid, and that he would 
deliver him the note but for the fact that an attachment had been issued 
against it — of the attachment, which antedated the sale of the note, Ould & 
Carrihgton had no notice. It was held that they were entitled to it — were 
not affected by the attachment of which they had no notice at time of pur- 
chase, and that the constructive delivery of the note was sufficient. Gkimmon 
Theological Seminary v. Bobbins, 12S Ind. S5, 27 N. E. 341; Welch v. Dameron, 
47 Mo. App. 221, citing text. 

76. V^^ilHams v. Gait, 65 111. 172. 

77. Clark v. Boyd, 2 Ohio, 56; Clark v. Sigoumey, 17 Conn. 511; Bromage 
v. Lloyd, 1 Exch. 32; Byles [•56], 242; Drum v. Benton, 13 App. D. C. 245. 

78. Perry v. Crammond, 1 Wash. C. C. 100, 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 49. 

79. Chitty on Bills [•172], 198. 

80. Smith v. McClure, 5 East, 476; Story on Bills, § 203, note 2; Thompson 
on Bills, 90. 

81. Griswold v. Davis, 31 Vt. 390; Woodford v. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82; Garrigus. 
Admr. v. The Home Frontier & Foreign Missionary Society, 3 Ind. App. 91, 
28 N. R 1009, 50 Am. St. Rep. 262; Knapstein v. Tinnette, 166 Dl. 322, 40 
N. E. 947. 

82. Cranston v. Goss, 107 Mass. 439; Sinclair v. Baggaley, 4 M. A W. 312; 
Anderson v. Weston, 6 Bing. N. C. 296; Emery v. Vinall, 26 Me. 295. 



§§ 66, 67. DEUVEBY. 85 

at any rate, before the day of its maturity.^ But the presump- 
tion both as to the fact and the time of delivery may be rebutted.^ 
As a bill or note takes effect only by delivery, so it takes effect 
only on delivery ; and if this be subsequent to its date, it will be 
binding only from that day.®* But still, when delivered, if it 
bear an anterior date, and be payable at some future day from 
date, the time will be computed according to its terms, and there- 
fore by relation from its date ; for it is competent for the parties 
to frame their contracts to suit themselves,^ and it will be proper 
to describe it as drawn on the day it bears date.*' 

§ 86. If the bill or note bear no date, the time must be com- 
puted from its delivery ; and if the day of actual delivery cannot 
be proved, it will be computed from the earliest day on which it 
appears to have been in the hands of the payee or any holder.** 
It 18 not necessary to aver a date to the bill or note, but it is 
suflScient to aver that it was drawn or made on a certain day.*^ 

§ 67. Delivery to a father of an order for an amoimt due his 
minor son is sufficient delivery in law ;*^ and so delivery to a trus- 
tee is sufficient as delivery to the cestui que trust f^ and delivery 
mJiy be made to one person for another.** Pelivery by one of 
two joint makers will be conclusively presumed to be the act of 
botL« 

83. Churchill y. Gardiner, 7 T. R. 596; Smith v. McClure, 6 East, 477; Bin- 
wy T. Plumley, 5 Vt. 600. See chapter XXI, on Transfer by Indorsement, § 6. 

84. Woodford y. Dorwin, 3 Vt 82; Scaife v. Byrd, 39 Ark. 568; Wickhicer 
et ol. T. Bolin, 22 Ind. App. 1, 53 N. E. 238. 

85. Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379. 

86w Powell y. Waters, 8 Cow. 669; Bumpass y. TimmB, 3 Sneed, 459; Snaith 
T. Miiigay, 1 Maule ft S. 87; Barker y. Sterne, 9 Exch. 684. 

87. Snaith y. Mingay, 1 Maule & S. 89. 

88. Clark y. Sigonmey, 17 Comi. 511 ; Richardson y. Lincoln, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 
201 ; Woodford y. Dorwin, 3 Vt. 82. 

89. De La Coutier y. Bellamy, 2 Show. 422 (1683) ; Hague v. French, 3 Bos. 
ft P. 173; Giles y. Bourne, 6 Maule & S. 73. 

90. ilason y. Hyde, 41 Vt. 432. 

91. Tucker y. Bradley, 33 Vt. 325. 

92. Elliott y. Deason, 64 Ga. 63. Deliyery to the hushand for the wife has 
been held* insufficient. Wright y. Smith, 81 Va. 777. A deliyery made to the 
•gent of the person is equiyalent in law to the principal. See Callahan y. 
Crow. 91 Hun, 346, 36 N. Y. Supp. 225. Compare Giselman y. Starr, 106 
Cal. 651, 40 Pac. 8. 

98. Beman y. Wessels, 53 Mich. 549; Carter y. Moulton, 51 Kan. 9, 32 Pac. 
<^. 37 Am. St. Rep. 259. 



86 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 67a. 

It is essential to delivery that the minds of both parties should 
assent^ in order to bind them; and if^ through inattention, in- 
firmity, or otherwise, one does not assent, the act of the other is 
nugatory. Therefore, leaving a check on the desk of a clerk,** 
or the counter of a bank,®*^ without the knowledge of such clerk 
or the bank officer, is not delivery. Where papers were taken up 
in the presence of the party sought to be charged, and placed in 
the safe of a third person, it was held no delivery on his part, as 
between the immediate parties, when he had done or said nothing 
to indicate an intention to deliver.®* 

Where notes were executed and left with the payee's agent, 
who objected only to their form, but retained them, agreeing to 
accept them, if the form could not be changed, and it was not, 
it was held to be sufficient delivery.*^ Placing bills or notes, 
signed or indorsed, in the custody of the postman, addressed to 
the payee or indorsee — that being the course of business between 
the parties — has been held, in England, a sufficient delivery ;*• 
and so depositing them in the post-office, with the assent of the 
payee or indorsee, is considered sufficient in the United States.^ 
And if a bill or note so deposited be lost on the way, and the cred- 
itor obtain a duplicate, and cause it to be demanded and protested, 
he may recover.^ The vendor of negotiable paper has the right 
of stoppage in transiiu to the same extent as the vendor of other 
species of personal property ; and the right to the remedy applies 
not only as against the vendee, but as well against a creditor of 
the vendee who has made a loan upon the promise of the vendee 
to transfer the paper to him on its arrival.* 

§ 67a. One who becomes a party to a note after delivery, and 
the consideration has passed between the original parties, incurs 
no liability to the payee unless there be a new consideration and 
a redelivery of the note ; and merely signing the note in the pres- 
ence of the payee does not amount to a redelivery.® 



94. Kinney v. Ford, 52 Barb. 194. 

05. Chicopee Bank v. Philadelphia Bank, 8 WaU. 641. 

06. Stokes V. Anderson, 118 Ind. 533. 

07. Bodley v. Higgins, 73 111. 375. 08. Rex v. Lambton, 6 Price, 428. 

00. Kirkman v. Bank of America, 2 Coldw. 397; Canterbury y! Bank of 
Sparta, 91 Wis. 53, 64 N. W. 311, 51 Am. St. Rep. 870. 

1. Kirkman v. Bank of America, supra, 

2. MuUer v. Pondir, 55 N. Y. 325. 

3. Williams v. Williams, 67 Mo. 661. To same effect, see Briggs y. Downing, 
48 Iowa, 550; Brant v. Barnett et ah, 10 Ind. App. 653, 38 N. E. 441; 
senger v. Vaughan, 45 Mo. App. 15. 



§§ 68, 68a. DKLivEKY. 87 

§ 68. Eserowi. — A bill or note, as well as a deed, may be de- 
livered as an escrow — that is, delivered to a third party (but 
not to the payee ),^ to hold until a certain event happens, or cer- 
tain oonditions are complied with — and then the liability of the 
par^ conmiences as soon as the event happens or the conditions are 
fulfilled, without actual delivery by the depositary to the prom- 
isee.* And it matters not that the actual delivery is not designed 
to take place until after the death of the promisor ; the instru- 
ment, whether negotiable or otherwise, is nevertheless valid.* 

But there is this distinction between negotiable and sealed 
instruments: If the custodian of the former betrays his trust, 
and passes off the negotiable instrument to a bona fide holder 
before maturity, and without notice, all parties are bound; but 
if the instrument be sealed, the rule is otherwise.^ 

§68a. Can delivery to payee be upon condition precedent T — A 

bill or note cannot be shown to have been delivered to the prom- 
isee as an escrow, for the evidence would be repugnant to the act.^ 

4 Clanin v. Esterly Hanr. Mach. Co., 118 Ind. 374; Murray et al. v. W. W. 
Kimball Co., 10 Ind. App. 184, 37 N. £. 734; Garner v. Fite et al, 93 Ala. 405, 
9 So. 367, citing text. 

5. Couch y. Meeker, 2 Conn. 302; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 61. See 
chapter on Bona Fide Holder, § 856; Taylor v. Thomas, 13 Kan. 217; Mis- 
souri Pac. R. Co. y. Atkinson, 17 Mo. App. 402, citing the text; Alexander y. 
Wilkes, U Lea, 221. As to what constitutes an escrow, see Lehigh Coal &; 
Iron Co. y. West Superior Iron & Steel Co., 01 Wis. 221, 64 N. W. 346; Glenn 
▼. Hill, 11 Wash. 541, 40 Pac. 141, citing and approying text. In Nichols 
t Shepard Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 6 N. Dak. 404, 71 N. W. 135, it was 
held that where promissory notes were placed by the parties thereto in 
the hands of a third party, with instructions not to deliyer the same until 
the maker so directed, the transaction did not constitute an escrow. The 
notes stiU remained in the control of the maker. There was no delivery in 
law, and so title to the notes yested in the payee. See Witmer Bros. y. Weid, 
108 CaL 560, 41 Pac. 401; Bradbury y. Dayenport, 120 Cal. 152, 62 Pac. 301. 
P«e Smith y. Goodrich, 167 III. 46, 47 N. E. 316. 

6. Giddings y. Giddings, 51 Vt. 227; Belden y. Carter, 4 Day, 66; Glenn 
^- Hill, 11 Wash. 541, 40 Pac. 141, citing and approving text; Wood y. Flanery, 
89 Mo. App. 632, citing text. 

7. Hntchinson y. Brown, 10 D. C. 136; Provident Trust Co. y. Mercer 
County, 170 U. 8. 607, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788; Fearing y. Clark, 16 Gray, 74; 
I^ng Island L. & T. Co. y. Columbus R. Co., 65 Fed. 458; Barson y. Hunting- 
ton, 21 Mich. 415; OaMn y. Lyfers, 22 Ind. App. 43, 52 N. E. 06; North 
Atchison Bank y. Gay, 114 Mo. 203, 21 S. W. 470; Joyce y. Cockrill, 35 C. C. A. 
38, 92 Fed. 838. 

8. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 51 ; Scott y. State Bank, Ark. 36; Mass- 
msn ▼. Holscher, 40 Mo. 87; Badcock y. Steadman, 1 Root (Conn.), 87; Jones 
T. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667. See pott, || 70, 81. 



88 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 68a. 

These questions are elsewhere more fully considered.® It has 
been said however by the Court of Appeals of New York, that 
" instruments not under seal mav be delivered to the one to whom 
on their face they are made payable, or who by their terms is 
entitled to some interest or benefit under them, upon conditions, 
the observance of which is essential to their validity. And the 
annexing of such conditions to the delivery is not an oral contra- 
diction of the written obligation, though negotiable as between 
the parties to it, or others having notice. It needs a delivery to 
make the obligation operative at all, and the effect of the delivery 
and the extent of the operation of the instrument may be limited 
by the conditions with which the delivery is made/^ *^ This 

9. See chapter XXVI, on Rights of Bona Fide Holder or l:^irclia8er, § S56; 
Henshaw v. Button, 59 Mo. 139. 

10. Benton y. Martin, 62 N. Y. 574, Folger, J.; Belleville Bank y. Bomemaa, 
124 111. 205. In Merchants' Exch. Bank y. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, Gil- 
Allan, J., said: "It was held in Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 314, and 
Skaaraas y. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, that in the case of an instrument not under 
seal it is competent to show by parol that notwithstanding its delivery, it was 
intended by the parties that it should become operative as a contract only 
upon the happening of a future contingent event, such as that it should be 
first executed by some other person. It is claimed that the rule ought not 
to apply to negotiable paper, but we can see no reason why, as between the 
original parties, it should not apply to such instruments, as well as any other, 
nor why a transferee with notice, or without valuable consideration, or 
after maturity, should not take such negotiable paper subject to that defense 
as well as to any other." The cases cited above appear to have been instances 
of delivery to the payee himself, or to his agent. Where the delivery is made 
by a surety to his principal upon conditions to be observed before the final 
promulgation of the paper, the liabilities of the parties, as between themselves, 
present a different question, some authorities contending that the payee taking 
such paper without notice of the condition is not affected thereby, and others 
maintaining that where the paper is nonnegotiable, or still in the hands of 
an original party, the surety may avail himself of the violation or non- 
observance of the condition. That the payee should take the paper free 
from any secret or private understanding existing between parties occa^ying 
the relations of principal and surety, seems to us the better doctrine. It is 
well presented by Mclver, J., in an opinion delivered in the case of Fowler v. 
Allen (S. C), 10 S. E. 947, where, after stating the facts, he said: "As 
to the second question, while it is not to be denied that there is some 
conflict in the cases elsewhere, we think the decided weight of authority as 
well as of argument, is in favor of the proposition that where one signs a 
negotiable note, perfect on its face, as surety for another upon the condition 
known only to the principal that it is not to be delivered to the .payee until 
something else is done, the surety will be liable, even if such condition be not 
complied with, unless notice of such condition is brought home to the payee. 



§ 69. DELIVEBT. 89 

view is now taken by the Supreme Conrt of the United 
States," 

§ 68. Bills and notes made on Snnday. — By the common law, 
there is no interdiction of secular business being conducted on 

ThU proposition does not rest alone upon the peculiar character of negotiable 
paper, but upon the well-settled principle that where one of two innocent 
persons must suffer, the loss should faU upon him who put it in the power 
of a third person to cause such loss, as well as upon the principle that where 
an agent is clothed with apparent authority to do an act, he may bind hia 
principal within the limits of that authority, whatever may have been his 
private instructions. Here the principal debtor, after signing the notes, 
takes them to the defendant for the purpose of procuring her signature as 
his surety, in accordance with the agreement made by him with the plain- 
tiffs; and, when he delivers them properly signed, surely the payees cannot 
be affected by any private instructions which the surety may have given to 
his principal, unless the same were communicated to the payees. The surety 
by signing the notes complete in form, and placing them in the hands of her 
principal to be delivered to the payees, even though upon a condition, has 
pisced it in the power of her principal to deceive the payees; and if Iosr 
ensues it must faU upon the one who contributed to that loss, rather than 
upon the innocent payees, who were left in ignorance of the conditions upon 
which the notes were signed. The principal debtor was the agent of the 
surety, and not of the creditor; and if he has done an act, for the doing of 
which he was clothed with apparent authority, even though it may have been 
done in violation of his private instructions, the person who invested him with 
sneh apparent authority, must talce the consequences." Bee also Jordan v. 
Jordan, 10 Lea, 124; Callahan v. Crow, 91 Hun, 346, 36 N. Y. Supp. 225. 
See also authorities cited in note 92 to § 81o; Wickhizer et al. v. Bolin, 22 
Ind. App. 1, 53 N. £. 238. And the motive of the maker of a note in deliver- 
ing the same is immaterial in an action against the sureties thereon. Weis 
y. Morris Bros., 102 Iowa, 327, 71 K. W. 208. See also Juilliard v. Chaffee. 
92 N. Y. fi29; Reynolds v. Robinson, 110 N. Y. 654, 18 N. E. 127; McFarland 
▼. Sikes, 54 Conn. 260, 7 Atl. 408, 1 Am. St. Rep. 111. 

11. In Burke v. Dulaney, 163 U. S. 228 (1803), 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 816. the 
eourt held that in an action by the payee against the maker of a note evidence 
is sdmissible to show a parol agreement between them, and at the time of 
making the note that it should not become operative as a note until the 
maker could examine the property (which consisted of a group of mines) for 
which the note was to be given, and determine whether he would take them. 
Harlan, J., cited Ware v. Allen, 128 U. S. 595, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Pym v. 
Osmpbell, 6 EI. & Bl. 370; Davis v. Jones, 17 C. B. (N. 8.) 626; Wilson v. 
Powers, 131 Mass. 539; Pawling v. United States, 4 Cranch, 219, and approv- 
iog Benton v. Martin, 62 N. T. 674. This decision goes to the consideration 
of the instrument, for unless the property was purchased it was without 
▼ainable consideration, the option to purchase it not having been the value 
fi[iTen for the note. It is therefore in accordance with the views set forth in 
f 810. 



90 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 69, 

Sunday, and, unless restrained by statute, a party may ^draw, 
make, indorse, or accept bills and notes on Sunday, and their acts 
will be as valid as if done on any other day.^^ By statute how- 
ever in many of the States of the United States, no contract can 
be entered into on Sunday, or secular business legally conducted.** 
Bills and notes executed and delivered on Sunday fall within 
the interdiction of such laws ; and the rule applicable to such 
instruments is, that the plaintiff cannot recover when, in order to 
sustain his supposed claim, he must set up an illegal agreement, 
to which he himself is a party.** But it is delivery that com- 
pletes a contract, and if the bill or note be delivered on another 
day, it will be valid, though dated and signed on Sunday;** and 
parol evidence is competent to show that it was so delivered on a 
different day, notwithstanding its date as of Sunday ;*" and e con- 
verso, that it was delivered on Sunday though dated as of a secu- 
lar day." And when so delivered on a different day, it is no 

12. Bigbie v. Levy, 1 Cromp. & J. 180, 1 Tyrw. 130; O'Rourke v. O'Rourke, 
43 Mich. 58; Chitty, Jr., 1516; Chitty on BiUs [•148], 171; Thompson on Bma, 
171 

13. A statute prohibiting labor on Sunday, is held in Missouri not to ex« 
tend to the making of contracts. Glover v. Cheatham, 19 Mo. App. 668. But 
this defense cannot avail in suit by indorsee against indorser, if the contract 
of indorsement was not entered into on Sunday. " The defendant by his in- 
dorsement is estopped to deny that the note is a valid contract, and as against 
him it must be assumed that it was made and delivered at a time when such 
business could be lawfully done." See Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 157 
Mass. 648, 32 N. E. 909. 

14. Pope V. Linn, 60 Me. 86; Pinney v. Callendar, 8 Minn. 42; Bramhall v. 
Van Campen, 8 Minn. 13; State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 N. H. 370; 
Smith V. Bean, 15 N. H. 577; Bank of Cumberland v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 
198; Smith v. Case, 2 Oreg. 190; Furz v. NichoUs, 2 M., G. & S. 500; BaU 
v. Powers, 62 Ga. 757; Hauerwas et ah v. Goodloe, Recr., 101 Ala. 162, 13 So, 
567; Hartshorn v. Hartshorn, 67 N. H. 163, 29 Am^ St. Rep. 406. 

15. Terry v. Piatt, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 185, 40 Atl. 243; Conrad v. Kinzie, 
105 Ind. 281. 

16. Flanagan v. Meyer, 41 Ala. 133; Aldridge v. Branch Bank, 17 Ala. 45; 
Trieber v. Commercial Bank, 31 Ark. 128; Vinton v. Peck, 16 Mich. 287; 
Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Fritsch v. Heesless, 40 Me. 556; Love joy v. 
Whipple, 18 Vt. 379; State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 N. H. 376; Dohoney 
V. Dohoney, 7 Bush, 217; King v. Fleming, 72 111. 21; Love v. Wells, 25 
Ind. 503 (a deed); Burns v. Moore, 76 Ala. 339; Goss v. Whitney, 24 Vt. 
187; Hill V. Dunham, 7 Gray, 543; Stacy v. Kemp, 97 Mass. 166; Hauerwas 
rt al. V. Goodloe, Recr., 101 Ala. 162, 13 So. 667. 

17. Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133; Bank of Cumberland v. Mayberry, 48 
Mp. 198. 



,^ 70. DBLIVBBY. 91 

objection to it that interest commences to run on Sunday.^^ 
Though the note made and delivered on Sunday be void, the payee 
may recover upon the original consideration. *• And the weight 
of authority seems to be, that, although a contract be entirely 
closed up on Sunday, yet, if ratified by the parties upon a subse- 
quent day, it is valid.*^ 

§ 70. Ltdortements on Sunday. — The indorsement of a bill or 
note on Sunday stands on the same footing as drawing a bill or 
making a note, and the indorsee cannot sue upon such an indorse- 
ment, either in his own name or in another^s, for his benefit.** 
The indorsee of a bill or note made or drawn on Sunday can 
stand upon no better footing than his transferrer, provided he 
have notice of the fact. And if the bill or note bear a certain 
date, or it appears that it was executed upon a certain day of the 
month, the court will take judicial notice of the fact, if such day 
were Sunday. The almanac has long been regarded and held as 
a part of the law of the land.^ And an indorsee would, doubt- 
less, be chargeable with notice from the face of the paper, if the 
day of the date it bears was Sunday. 

Clearly, however, an indorsee who takes a bill or note dated as 
of a secular day, and without notice from its face or otherwise, 
that it was executed on Sunday, could recover upon it.** But it 
has be en held that a note signed by a surety on Sunday, but 

1& ManhaU ▼. Russell, 44 N. H. 500. 

19. Sayre v. Wheeler, 31 Iowa, 112; Hartshorn v. Hartshorn, 67 N. H. 163, 

29 Atl. 406. 

80. King T. Fleming, 72 HI. 21; Commonwealth v. Kendig, 2 Pa. St. 44S; 
aongh V. Davis, 9 N. H. 500; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379; Hilton v. 
Honghton, 36 Me. 143; Winchell y. Carey, 115 Mass. 560; Cook v. Forker, 
193 Pt. St. 461, 44 Atl. 560, 74 Am. St. Rep. 699. citing text. 

21. Benson v. Drake, 55 Me. 555. But see State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 
42 N. H. 370; First Nat. Bank v. Kingsley, 84 Me. Ill, 24 Atl. 794; Cook v. 
Porker, 193 Pa. St. 461, citing text; Whitmire v. Montgomery, 165 Pa. St. 2.')3, 

30 Atl. 1016. 

22. Finney v. CaUendar, 8 Minn. 41; Chrisman v. Tuttle, 59 Ind. 155. 

28. Trieher v. Commercial Bank, 31 Ark. 128; Heise v. Bumpass, 40 Ark. 
547; Cranson y. Goas, 107 Mass. 439; Great head v. Walton, 40 Conn. 81; 
Pope y. Linn, 50 Me. 84; State Capitol Bank y. Thompson, 42 N. H. 370; 
Clinton Nat. Bank y. Grayes, 48 Iowa, 228; Ball y. Powers, 62 Ga. 757; 
Knox y. Clifford, 38 Wis. 661; Nelson y. Cowing, 20 Wend. 336; Bigelow on 
Bins, 539; Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 24, 25. And though transferred after 
maturity, the maker has no equity against the transferee. He cannot set up 
its illegality to protect himself against the claim of a Inma fide holder without 
notice. Leightman y. Kadetska, 58 Iowa, 676, 43 Am. Rep. 129; Harrison 
T. Powers, 76 Ga. 240. 



92 BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 71- 

delivered on a week day to the payee, who did not know the fact, 
was void.^ This doctrine is inconsistent with the weight of 
authority, and with sound reason, as it is the delivery that gives 
significance to* the act; and the paper, in the absence of notice, 
should always be taken to be what its face purports. If the 
instrument were without date, there would be nothing about it 
to intimate notice, or charge the indorsee with its illegality be- 
cause made on Sunday.^ It is urged by the learned editor of 
Ames on Bills, that while the transfer on Sunday is unlawful, 
it yet passes title, and that the transferee may sue prior parties.^ 
An analogous question is elsewhere discussed.^^ 

§ 71. The execution of a note does not import a debt existing 
previous to the period of its execution ; but its effect is to give the 
debt and the note a contemporaneous origin*^ Proof of the giv- 
ing of a promissory note by one person to another, nothing else 
appearing, is prima facie evidence of an accounting and settle- 
ment of all demands between the parties, and that the maker at 
the date of the note was indebted to the payee upon such settle- 
ment to the amount of such note.^ But this is a mere presump- 
tion, which may be repelled by proofs of the consideration of such 
note, and of the occasion for and circumstances attending the giv- 
ing of the same.^ And the presumption does not apply to in- 
clude notes previously given.^ 

24. Parker v. Pitts, 73 Ind. 598; Gilbert v. Vanchon, 69 Ind. 372. It is also 
held in Indiana that if a note be delivered to a comaker for the payee on 
Sunday it is void. Davis v. Barger, 57 Ind. 55. 

25. State Capitol Bank v. Thompson, 42 N. U. 370. In Benjamin's Chalmers* 
Digest, p. 24, it is stated, and Bigbie v. Levy, 1 Cromp. & J. 180 (1830), " that a 
bill bearing date on a Sunday is not presumed to have been issued on that 
day." The citation does not support the text. It was the case of suit against 
the acceptor of a bill drawn payable to the drawer's order, the court saying 
that ''the presumption arising from the known practice of merchants would 
be that the bill was not accepted on the day on which it was drawn.'* Chitty 
states that there is no objection to a bill being dated on Sunday. Chitty on 
Bills t*94], 114; [•148], 170 (13th Am. ed.). 

26. Ames on Bills and Notes, vol. 1, p. 352. 27. §§ 762, 764 et seq. 

28. Johnson v. Lane's Trustees, 11 Gratt. 553. 

29. Lake v. Tysen, 6 N. Y. 461; Davis v. Gallagher, 55 Hun, 696; De 
Freest v. Bloomingdale, 5 Den. 304; Dutcher v. Porter, 63 Barb. 20; Sherman 
v. Mclntyre, 7 Hun, 592; Tisdale v. Maxwell, 58 Ala. 40; Graves v. Shulman, 
59 Ala. 406; Challoner v. Boyington, 91 Wis. 27, 64 N. W, 422, citing and 
approving text; Marmion v. McClellan, 11 App. D. C. 467. 

30. Sherman v. Mclntyre, 7 Hun, 592. 

31. Tisdale v. Maxwell, 58 Ala. 40. 



CHAPTER in. 

roWHAL REQUISITES OP BILLS AND NOTES. 



SECTION I. 

70BMALITT IN BESPEGT TO 8TTLS AND MATSBIAL. 

§72. Having sufficiently treated of the elements essential to 
the contract in order to impart to it the character of negotiability, 
we now come to speak of ihe formal preparation and delivery of 
the instrument. 



§ 78. As to the peculiar forms of bills and notes. — It does not 
appear necessary that they should be framed in any particular 
form, provided they possess the essential qualities which have 
been mentioned. We give the forms which are usually in vogue 
among merchants, and it would be unwise to depart from them.^ 
But the law respects substance more than form; and where the 
intention appears to have assumed the obligations which devolve 
upon drawers and makers of negotiable instruments, it will be 
enforced, although not evidenced in the usual commercial form. 
Thus, an order written under a note, ^^ Please pay the above 
note, and hold it against me in our settlement," signed by the 
drawer and accepted by the drawee, has been held a good bill;* 
and so also has been held a like order written under an account.' 
And where an indorsement was written on a bond, ordering the 
contents to be paid to order for value received, it was held a good 
bilL* And an instrument of the following tenor : " Nobleboro, 
October 4th, 1869. Nathaniel O. Winslow, Cr. By labor 16f 
days, a $4 per day, $67. Good to bearer. (Signed,) Wm. Van- 
nah," has been decided to be a negotiable promissory note, pay- 
able to Winslow on demand,* The words " this is to certify I 

1. Chitty on BUls [*128], 148. See Appendix A. 

2. Leonard v. Mason, 1 Wend. 262. 

3. Hoyt v. Lynch, 2 Sandf. 328. 

4. Bay y. Frazer, 1 Bay, 66. But see Norris v. Solomon, 2 Moody &, R. 117. 

5. Hmeey v. Winslow, 59 Me. 170. 

[931 



94 FOSMAI. REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 74. 

am to pay " are a sufficient promise.* But the words under an 
itemized account: "A. B., please pay the above bill," if naming 
no payee, would not be a bill ;^ and the like view was taken where 
under such an account was writton : " Mr. Solomon, please to 
pay the above account to Messrs, Oliver & Son, 7 Lawrence Lane, 
and oblige, yours respectfully, R. Norris." ® 

§ 74. Signature. — It does not matter upon what portion of the 
instrument the maker or drawer affixes his name, so that he signed 
as drawer or maker.® In a late case, where the maker of a note, 
which was in printed form, by mistake signed his name above 
the printed line which stated the bank at which it was payable, 
it was held that the printed line below the signature was never- 
theless part of the note, especially where it had interest coupons 
attached, and was indorsed in that form ; these circumstances pre- 
cluding all doubt of the fact that the designation of the place 
of payment was on the note at the time it was executed. ^*^ " I, 
A. B., promise to pay," is as good a note, if written by A. B. or 
his authorized agent, as " I promise to pay," subscribed " A. B." " 
And so " I, A. B., request you to pay," would be a good bill, 
though not undersigned.^^ Nor is it at all material whether the 
writing is in pencil or ink,^^ though, as a matter of permanence 
and security, ink is, of course, preferable. And the name may be 
printed as well as written, though, in such cases, it cannot prove 
itself and must be shown to have been adopted and used by the 
party as his signature." If another sign the name of the party 

6. Meyer v. Weil, 37 La. Ann. 160. 

7. Flatzer v. Norris, 38 Tex. 387. 

8. Norris y. Solomon, 2 Moody & R. 266. 

9. Hunt V. Adams, 5 Mass. 359; Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484; Schmidt v. 
Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502. Where a note is signed hut not indorsed hy the payee, 
and other parties sign on hack thereof, payee may treat such parties, in the 
ahsenoe of any agreement to the contrary, either as indorsers or joint makers. 
Miller v. Clendenin, 42 W. Va. 416, 26 S. £. 512. 

10. Turnbull v. Thomas, 1 Hughes, 172. 

11. Taylor v. Dobbins, 1 Stra. 399. 

12. Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 Bos. & P. 238; Chitty, Jr., on Bills, 10. 

13. Brown y. Butchers' Bank, 6 Hill, 443; Reed y. Roark, 14 Tex. 329; Clos- 
son y. Steams, 4 Vt. 11; Geary y. Physic, 5 B. & C. 234; Chitty on Bills 
[*126], 147. A deed in pencil has been deemed sufficient. McDowell y. Cham- 
bers, 1 Strobh. Eq. 347. 

14. Schneider y. Norris, 2 Maule & S. 286; Brown y. Butchers' Bank, 6 Hill, 
443; Pennington y. Baehr (Sup. Ct. Cal.), Cent. L. J., yol. 2, No. 6, Feb. 5, 
1875; Story on Bills, § 58. 



§ 75. FORMALITY IN RESPECT TO STYLE AND MATERIAL. 96 

in his presence and at his request, it is the same as if he did it 
himself ;^* and if another sign the party's name by verbal or other 
authority, it is sufficient*® The full name may be written; and 
at least the surname should appear, and generally does. But 
this is not indispensable — the initials are sufficient,*^ and any 
mark which the party uses to indicate his intention to bind him- 
self will be as effectual as his signature,*® whether there be a cer- 
tificate of witnesses on the instrument or not*® But of course 
a mark does not prove itself like a signature, although it is an 
adminicle of proof.^ Any peculiarity in it may be shown as 
evidence of its genuineness;^* but, unless there be an attesting 
witness, or one who saw it written, or is familiar with its char- 
acteristics, the plaintiff cannot recover.^ Proof by subscribing 
witnesses is elsewhere considered.^ 

§75. The name is not necessary if it be sufficiently indicated 
who the party is. A note signed " Steamboat Ben Lee and 
owners,"^ has been held sufficient ; and likewise a bill drawn on 

15. Sager v. Tapper, 42 Mich. 605; Crumrine t. The Estate of Cnimrine, 
U Ini App. 641, 43 N. E. 322. 

1& The note in controversy was signed by a mark, and there was no evi- 
dence that the decedent touched the pen in the hand of the person who signed 
his name for him. It is not necessary, in the execution of a note, that the 
person executing it, if unable to write his own name, shall touch the pen 
while such person is signing for him, it is only necessary that such person be 
authorized by him to sign his name for him. See Kennedy v. Graham, Admr., 
9 Ind. App. 624, 35 N. E. 923, 37 N. E. 25. See §$ 209, 274. 

17. Merchants' Bank v. Spicer, 6 Wend. 443; Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Den. 
471 ; 1 Pftrsons on Notes and Bills, 36. 

la Lyons v. Holmes, 11 S. C. 429. 

19. Willoughby v. Moulton, 47 N. H. 205 (unwitnessed) ; Shank v. Butsch, 28 
lod. 19 (uniit'itnessed) ; Flint v. Flint, 6 Allen, 34; Hilbom v. Alford, 22 Cal. 
482; George v. Surrey, 1 Moody & M. 516, where the indorsement was ''Ann 
Moore X her mark." Brown v. Butchers' Bank, 6 Hill, 443, where the figures 
'^ 1, 2, 8 '' were held sufficient. 

SO. Hilbom v. Alford, 22 Cal. 482; Flowers v. Billing, 45 Ala. 488. See cases 
»tftra, and Story on Bills, $ 53, note 6. 

21. George v. Surrey, 1 Moody & M. 516; Thompson on Bills, 35; 2 Parsonn 
on Notes and Bills, 480. 

22. See Thompson on Bills, 30, 31, 33. Contra, Staples v. Bedford Loan & 
Bep. Bank, 98 Ky. 451, 33 S. W. 403; ChadwelFs Admr. y. Chadwell, 98 Ky. 
W3, 33 8. W. 1118. 

23. Pwt, I 112. 

24 Sanders v. Anderson, 21 Mo. 402. 



96 FORMAL BEQiriSITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 76. 

" Steamer C. W. D. and owners," and accepted " Steamer C. W. 
D., by A. B., agent." * 

§ 76. Hanif est informalities. — A manifest informality of ex- 
pression or grammatical error, whether in respect to date, amount, 
time, place, or other matter, will in nowise affect the validity of 
a bill or note. Thus, it has been held that a note in form nego- 
tiable, but running, " sixty days after date, I promised to pay," 
instead of " I promise," was as good as if the promise in the past 
tense had been expressed in the present.^ So the singular 
'^ pound " clearly means " poimds ;" ^ the words " Fife hundred " 
means " five hundred ;" ^ and " four hund," " four hundred." * 

A note payable " twenty-four after date," ^ and one payable 
" six after date," *^ have been held not void for uncertainty, but 
parol evidence has been admitted to ascertain the intention of the 
parties ; and a note payable " four months after," has been held 
payable " four months after date," ® and a note payable " ninety 
after date" at ninety days.^ So where the note was payable 
" seventy-five after date " parol evidence was admitted to show 
that days were intended." 

" With ten per cent, after due," " or " at ten per cent, value 
received," '* or " with ten per cent.r ®^ clearly means with ten 
per cent *' interest," although the word " interest '^ be omitted. 

Where a note is dated in December, and made payable on " the 
25th of December next," it is admissible to show that December 
instant was intended.^ And where a bill was drawn " payable 
on the 6-9 Jan.," the evidence of bankers and brokers was held 
admissible to show that the figures were designed to designate 

25. Alabama v. Brainard, 35 Ala. 478. 
. 26. Perkins' Case, 7 Gratt. 661; Commonwealth v. Parmenter, 5 Pick. 279. 

27. Rex V. Post, Russ. & Ry. 101. 

28. Ohm V. Young, 63 Ind. 412. 

29. Glenn v. Porter, 72 Ind. 526. 

30. Conner v. Routh, 7 How. (Miss.) 176. 

31. Nichols V. Frothingham, 45 Me. 220. 

32. Pearson v. Stoddard, 9 Gray, 199. 

33. Deshon v. Leffler, 7 Mo. App. 595. 

34L Boykin v. Bank of Mobile, 72 Ala. 262. 

35. Higley v. Newell, 28 Iowa, 516. 

36. Williams v. Baker, 67 111. 238; Thompson r. Hoagland, IKS OL 810; 
Cramer v. Joder, 65 HI. 314. 

37. Ohm V. Young, 63 Ind. 412. 

38. McCrary v. Caskey, 27 Ga. 54. 



§§ 77-79. FOSMAL.ITY IN BE8PEGT TO STYLB AND MATERIAL. 97 

the days of grace.^ The words " are to be paid," if obviously 
uecessary to make sense, may be understood as implied, and con- 
sidered as inserted.*^ A note drawn " payable at Gitz. Bank," 
evidently means at Citizen's Bank."** 

§ 77. Material. — As to the material upon which negotiable in- 
struments should be written, it does not appear to be necessary 
that the substance should be paper. It is conceived that they 
might be written on parchment, cloth, leather, or any other con- 
venient substitute for paper."** Whether a valid bill or note may 
be written upon metal, stone, or wood, does not seem to have been 
decided ; but if it were distinctly proven that the instrument was 
intended as a bill or note, the substance could be no objection to 
its validity. But it is of course entirely out of the usual course 
of business ; and it must rarely, if ever, occur that such a ques- 
tion is presented. Certainly, the courts would look with sus- 
picion upon so peculiar an instrument; and its unusual form 
would, in itself, be a warning to all purchasers that they took it 
at their periL^ A metallic token, like an I. O. U., would seem 
at common law to be only evidence of a debt.** 

§ 78. Printed notes. — Individuals, bankers, and others have 
frequently, in the United States, issued their promissory noteb 
in printed forms closely resembling in size, color, and texture of 
paper, and in mode of execution, bank notes. They are intended 
to circulate as money, and very often constitute a currency in 
themselves, when no National or State law prohibits them. They 
are valid obligations when not so prohibited, and are enforced 
by the courts as the promissory notes of the parties executing 
them.** 

§ 78. Wliole initrament must be in writing. — The whole of the 
bill or note must be expressed in writing. But the whole of it 
need not be in the body of the instrument ;** and a contemporane- 
ous memorandum or indorsement on any part of it may qualify 

89. Kelsej t. Hibbs, 13 Ohio (N. S.), 340. 

40. Peyton v. Harman, 22 Gratt. 643. 

41. Locke V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 66 Ind. 356. 

4JSl Byles on Bflk (Sharswood's ed.)> 165. A deed must be written upon 
ptrchment or paper. Coke litt. 229. 
43. 1 Paraone on Notes and Bills, 23. 
41 Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.), 2S1. 

45. James ▼. Rogers, 23 Ind. 453 (1865). 

46. Goldman ▼. Blnm, 58 Tex. 636, citing the text. 

Vol. 1 — 7 



98 FORMAL BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 80. 

its terms by making it payable upon a contingency,*^ or at a par- 
ticular place,*® or providing that it may be renewed.** And 
there may be a written stipulation on a detached paper affecting 
the instrument, which would be admissible as between the origi- 
nal parties and their representatives ;^ but such stipulation would 
not affect a bona fide holder for value, who acquired it without 
notice.^^ But any party having notice would stand on no better 
footing than the original parties.*^ Whether the instrument 
be a bill of exchange or a promissory note, or otherwise, and 
whether or not it be negotiable, must be determined by its face, 
without reference to any other source.^ 

§ 80. Parol evidence. — It is a general principle of law that 
parol evidence is inadmissible to vary or contradict a written con- 
tract. Therefore, if a bill or note be absolute upon its face, no 
evidence of a verbal agreement made at the same time, qualifying 
its terms, can be admitted." Thus, where a note is payable on 

47. Beele v. Bidgood, 1 Man. & Ry. 143, 7 B. & C. 453; Hartley ▼. Wilkinson, 
4 Maule & S. 25; Hey wood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228; Shaw v. M. £. Society, 8 
Mete. (Mass.) 220; Chitty on Bills [•126], 146; Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 
168; Byles (Sharswood's ed.) [*941, 193; Leeds v. Lancashire, 2 Campb. 205; 
Hughes v. Fisher, 10 Colo. 385, citing the text. 

48. Ibid. 

49. Hartley v. Wilkinson, 4 Maule & S. 25. 

50. Bowerbank v. Monteiro, 4 Taunt. 844. 

51. Hoare v. Graham, 3 Campb. 57; Gilmore v. Hirst, 56 Kan. 626, 44 Pac. 
603, quoting text. 

52. Gibbon v. Scott, 2 Stark. 286. 

53. Strachan v. Muxton, 24 Wis. 21. 

54. McGrath v. Barnes, 13 S. C. 328; Bums v. Scott, 117 U. 8. 682; Whit- 
well V. Winslow, 133 Mass. 343; Kelsey ▼. Chamberlain, 47 Mich. 241; Har- 
rison V. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319; Harwood ▼. Brown, 5 West. 60; Stiles v. 
Vandewater (N. J.), 3 Cent. 485, citing the text; Cooper v. The German 
Nat. Bank of Denver et ah, 9 Colo. App. 169, 47 Pac. 1041 ; Beecher ▼. Dunlap. 
5£, Ohio St. 64, 38 N. E. 795; Davis v. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 25 N. £. 862; Pree- 
cott V. Hixon, 22 Ind. App. 139, 53 N. £. 391, 72 Am. St. Rep. 291. The same 
principle applies to the contract of indorsement, and consequently the definite 
legal signification of an indorsement cannot be afl'ected or contradicted by 
parol evidence. See Aurora Nat. Bank v. Dils, 18 Ind. App. 319, 48 N. £. 19: 
Altman v. Anton, 91 Iowa, 612, 60 N. W. 191; Gark v. Gramling, 54 Ark. 
525, 16 S. W. 475; Cross v. HoUister, 47 Kan. 652, 28 Pac. 693; Bank v. Man- 
ning, 60 Kaik 729, 57 Pac. 949; Brook v. Latimer, 44 Kan. 431, 24 Pac. 946, 
21 Am. St. Rep. 292. Held in this case that parol evidence is admissible to 
show that a promissory note for the payment of $10,000, executed by a daugh- 
ter to her father and made payable on demand, was in fact executed by the 



^ 80. FOBMAUTT IN BESPECT TO STYLE AND MATERIAL. 99 

demand, it cannot be shown by verbal testimony that it was 
agreed that it should not be paid till after the decease of the 
testator;" nor until after sale of the maker's estates;*^ nor until 
a certain account should be adjusted and credited on its face f' 
nor until certain premises were delivered up;*® nor until a divi- 
dend of a bankrupt's assets should have been made;*^® nor until 
the amount was collected from certain sources f^ nor until a cer- 
tain draft was received;®^ nor can it be shown verbally that 
Jemand of a post-dated check was not to be made at maturity f^ 
nor that a note in which no time for payment is expressed, and 
is therefore constructively payable on demand, was to be paid at 
a specified time f^ nor can it be shown that there was any 
agreement to prolong or vary the time of payment specified in the 
instrument, by taking part payment and waiting for the residue, 
by receiving payment in instalments, or otherwise than the in- 
stnunent itself declares;®* nor that the liability of the drawer,^ 

daughter and received by the parent as a mere receipt or memoranda of 
adranoement made by the parent to the child and that a partial understanding 
was had at the time of its execution and delivery that payment thereof 
would never be demanded or enforced. Miller v. Gunderson, 48 Nebr. 715, 67 
X. W. 709; Van Etten v. Howell, 40 Nebr. 860; Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. 
Smartzell, 61 Mo. App. 490. See Langan v. Langan, 91 Cal. 186, 27 Pac. 1092. 

55. Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 B. & Aid. 233; Graves v. Clark, 6 Blackf. 183. 
Nor that makers of a promissory note signed as sureties, especially when 
there is an affirmative statement in the note that the parties signed as prin- 
cipals. Wingate v. Blalock, 15 Wash. 45, 45 Pac. 663. 

5a Getto V. Binkert, 55 Kan. 617, 40 Pac. 925; Free v. Hawkins, 8 Taunt. 
92, 1 J. B. Moore, 535. 

57. Mahan v. Sherman, 7 Blackf. 378 ; San Jos^ Sav. Bank v. Stone, 59 Cal. 
183, citing the text. 

58. Moseley t. Hanford, 10 B. & C. 729. 

59. Rawson v. Walker, 1 Stark. 361. 

60. Campbell ▼. Upshaw, 7 Hnmphr. 185; McClanaghan v. Hines, 2 Strobh. 
122: Litchfield ▼. Falconer, 2 Ala. 280; De Long v. Lee, 73 Iowa, 53; Van 
Vechten v. Smith, 59 Iowa 73. 

61. Rincaid v. Higgins, 1 Bibb, 396. 62. Hill v. Gaw, 4 Barr, 493. 

63. Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 Johns. 189. 

64. Eaton v. Emerson, 14 Me. 335; Barton v. Wilkins, 1 Mo. 74; Dawson ▼. 
Bank of ntinois, 4 Scam. 56; Walker v. Clay, 21 Ala. 797; Doss v. Peterson, 
^ Ala. 256; Gardner v. Matthews, 11 Mo. App. 269; Porteous v. Muir, 8 
Ont. 127; Wilse v. Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242; Blakemore v. Wood, 3 Sneed, 
470; Kice V. Ragland, 10 Humphr. 545; Sturdivant v. Hull, 59 Me. 172; Roache 
r Roanoke Classical Seminary, 56 Ind. 202. 

05. Wood T. Surrell, 89 IlL 107 ; Cummings v. Kent, 44 Ohio St. 92, citing 
the text 



100 FORMAL* BBQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 80. 

maker,^ or other party,^ was not to be enforced ; nor that it was 
not to be negotiated, but renewed f^ nor that a party joint-maker 
in form, supposed his liability to be that of an indorser;® nor 
that it was not to be paid in case a certain verdict was obtained,™ 
or in any other event f^ nor that it was to be paid to some person 
other than the payee;" nor that it was merely given as an in- 
demnity against certain claims ;^^ nor merely as a receipt;^* nor 
merely as a matter of form f^ nor (in case of a bill) that it was 
in full discharge of the debt and of liability on the bill.^* But 
if a party signed a note on the false assurance that it was a 
receipt, instead of a note, he acting on that assurance and not 
reading the paper, it seems that such evidence between the 
parties would be admissible to show fraud." On this subject the 
United States Supreme Court has recently said : " Negotiable 
notes are written instruments, and as such they cannot be con- 
tradicted, nor can their terms be varied by parol evidence; and 
that proposition is universally true where the promissory note 
is in the hands of an innocent holder. Where a bill of exchange 
was drawn in the usual form, and was protested for nonpayment, 
the court held twenty years ago that parol evidence of an under- 
standing between the drawer and the party in whose favor the 

66. Wright v. Remington, 41 N. J. L. (13 Vroom) 48; Dolson t. De 
Ganahl, 70 Tex. 621; Davy v. Kelley, 66 Wis. 455; Mason v. Mason, 72 Iowa, 
457; Armstrong v. Scott, 36 Fed. 63; Bishop v. Diliard, 49 Axk. 285; Qerth 
V. Engler, 71 Iowa, 616. 

67. § 710; RendeU v. Harriman, 75 Me. 497; Davis v. England, 141 Mass. 
587; Heffner v. Brownell, 75 Iowa, 341. 

68. Heist v. Hart, 73 Pa. St. 286; McGrath v. Barnes, 13 S. C. 328; Thomp- 
son V. Love, 61 Ark. 81, 32 S. W. 85; Waddle v. Owen, 43 Nebr. 489, 61 N. W. 
731. 

69. Cooke v. Brown, 62 Mich. 474. 

70. Foster v. Jolly, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 703. 

71. Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667; post, § 81; Gardner v. Matthews, 81 Mo. 627; 
Farmer v. Perry, 70 Iowa, 358; Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 54 Nebr. 456, 74 
N. W. 849; Murchie v. Peck Bros., 160 111. 175, 43 N. E. 356. 

72. Draper v. Rice, 56 Iowa, 114. 

73. Ridout V. Bristow, 1 Cromp. & J. 231. 

74. Billings v. Billings, 10 Cush. 178; Dickson v. Harris, 60 Iowa, 727. 
76. Wright V. Remington, 12 Vroom (N. J.), 48. 

76. Martin v. Lewis, 30 Gratt. 672. 

77. Stoyell v. Stoyell, 82 Me. 334, 19 Atl. 860. 



§ 81. FORMALITY IN BE8PE0T TO STYLE AND MATERIAL. 101 

bill was drawn was inadmissible to vary the terms of the instru- 
ment'* 

§ 81. The principle applies to every element of the instrument. 
It cannot be shown by parol that the sum agreed to be paid was 
different;'® nor that an additional sum was to be paid in a cer- 
tain contingency;** nor that a certain account was to be de- 
ducted from the note,*^ or the value of certain articles credited 
upon it;® nor that a note payable in " lawful money " was to be 
paid in silver;*® nor when expressed to be payable in dollars, 
that it was payable in bank notes, corporation or individual 
notes, or in any paper currency,®* or in goods or other articles." 

In Missouri, it has been held that if payable in the '^ currency 
of the State," it cannot be shown that anything was intended but 
gold and silver, or notes of the Bank of Missouri.^ 

Xor can any condition be engrafted in the instrument by 
verbal testimony — as that it should be void unless others in- 
terested agreed to the settlement in which it was given ;•' or was 
to be void if certain bills should be paid at maturity ;^ or was to 
be void or surrendered up in the event the case in which it was 

78. Bro\ni v. Spofford, 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 480 (1877). See Brown v. Wiley, 
20 How. 442; Specht v. Howard, 16 WalL 664; Fonyth ▼. Kimball, 91 U. S. 
(1 Otto) 291; Martin v. Lewis, 30 Oratt. 672; Foster v. Clifford, 44 Wis. 669; 
Ciislmuui y. HArrison, 90 Cal. 297, 27 Pac. 283, citing text. 

79. Beard y. White, 1 Ala. 436, 5 Port. (Ala.) 94; Carter v. Hamilton, 11 
Barb. 147; Downs v. Webster, Brayt. 79; Loudermilk ▼. Loudermilk, 93 Qa. 
443, 21 S. E. 77. 

80. Gazoway v. Moore, Harp. 401. 

81. Eaves v. Henderson, 17 Wend. 190. 

82. Featherston t. Wilson, 4 Ark. 164; St. Louis, etc., Ins. Co. y. Homer, 
ifete. (Mass.) 39. Or a lesser rate of interest than that stated in the note. 
See BsTis t. Stent, 126 Ind. 12, 25 N. E. 862, 22 Am. St. Rep. 566. 

83. Alsop V. Goodwin, 1 Root, 196. 

84. Noe V. Hodges, 3 Humphr. 162; Cole v. Handley, 8 Bmedes & M. 473; 
Pack V. Thomas, 13 Smedes & M. 11; Baugh v. Ramsey, 4 T. B. Mon. 155; 
M'Minn v. Owen, 2 Ball. 173; Hair v. Le Bronse, 10 Ala. 548; Langen- 
^*rger v. Kraeger, 48 Cal. 147; Clark v. Hart, 49 Ala. 86. 

85. Bradley y. Anderson, 5 Vt. 152; Coe v. Wallace, 5 Blackf. 199. 

86. CockriU v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Mo. 688. 

87. Ely V. Kilbom, 5 Ben. 514; Beecher v. Bunlap, 52 Ohio St. 64, 38 N. E. 
'95; Barnard State Bank y. Fesler, 89 Mo. App. 217; Chicago Cottage Organ 
Cb. T. Swartzell, 61 Mo. App. 490. 

88. Penny v. Graves, 12 HI. 187. 



102 FOBMAL REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 81a. 



90 



given for a fee were compromised,* or in any other contingency. 
Nor can it be shown that it was only to be paid out of a par- 
ticular fund or estate.** 

§ 81a. Delivery to payee 'to take effect only upon oondition 
precedent, or to be void upon condition subsequent. — It has been 
held in a number of cases that a note may be delivered to the 
payee to take effect only upon a condition precedent; and that 
default in the fulfilment of such conditions may be shown by 
parol evidence, and will defeat recovery as between immediate 
parties." But unless the nonfulfilment of the condition goes to 
the failure of consideration this would seem to trench upon fixed 
principles of law. Evidence of want of consideration is admis- 
sible between original parties. " Every bill or note imports two 
things: value received, and an agreement to pay the amount on 
certain specified terms. Evidence is admissible to deny the re- 

88. Dale v. Pope, 4 Litt. 166. 

90. Bro^ii V. Hull, 1 Den. 400; Holt v. Moore, 6 Ala. 621; Adanu ▼. Wil- 
son, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 138; Spring v. Lovett, 11 Pick. 417; Haverin ▼. DonnelLT 
Smedes & M. 244; Underwood v. Simonds, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 275; Rose v. 
Learned, 14 Mass. 154; Brown v. Langley, 5 Scott N. R. 249; Sears v. Wright. 
24 Me. 278; Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667; Dale v. Pope, 4 Litt. 166; Tower r. 
Richardson, 6 Allen, 351; Anderson v. Magnider, 10 Cal. 419; Calhoun ▼. Davis. 
2 Ind. 532; Goddard v. Cutts, 11 Me. 440; Miller v. White, 7 Blackf. 491: 
Burge V. Dishman, 5 Ind. 272; Potter v. Earnest, 45 Ind. 418, Osborn, J.: 
''A verbal condition cannot be annexed to a promissory note; " WayUnd 
University v. Boorman, 56 Wis. 660; ante, § 80. 

91. Adams v. Wilson, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 138; Currier v. Hale, 8 Allen, 47: 
Campbell v. Hodgson, Gow. 74; Rawson v. Walker, 1 Stark. 361; Biown v. 
Spofford, 96 U. S. (5 Otto) 482 (1877); Mumford v. Tolman, 157 HL 258, 41 
N. E. 617; Gorrell v. Home life Ins. Co., 11 C. C. A. 240, 63 Fed. 370. 

92. Benton v. Martin, 52 N. Y. 574. See ante, § 68; Williams v. First 
Nat. Bank of Syracuse, 45 App. Div. 239, 60 N. Y. Supp. 1105, 6 Am. 
St. Rep. 70; Persons v. Hawkins, 41 App. Div. 171, 58 N. Y. Supp. 
831; Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Chirtis, 33 App. Div. 240, 57 N. Y. Supp. 
121; Benjamin v. Ver Nooy, 36 App. Div. 581, 55 N. Y. Supp. 796, 93 
Am. Dec. 540; Simmons v. Thompson, 29 App. Div. 559, 51 N. Y. Supp. 
1018, 86 Am. Dec. 332, citing Higgins v. Ridgway, 153 N. Y. 130, 47 N. E. 32: 
Andrews k Co. v. Hess, 20 App. Div. 194, 46 N. Y. Supp. 796; Juilliard v. 
Chaffee, 92 N. Y. 529; Quinlan v. Fairchild, 76 Hun, 312, 27 N. Y. Supp. 
689. And it has been held in New York that the fact that the maker of a 
promissory note agrees with the guarantor thereof, that before uaing the 
note he will procure the signature of another person as one of the makers 
thereof, does not relieve the guarantor from liability thereon, although the 
maker failB to procure such additional signature, where it does not appear 
that the payee had knowledge or information of such agreement. See Eti v. 
Place, 81 Hun, 203, 30 N. Y. Supp. 766. 



§ 81a. FOBMALITY IN BESPSCT TO STYLE AND MATERIAL. 103 

ceipt of value, but not to vary the engagement." ^ The cases 
amply sustain the foregoing views, which seem to us altogether 
correct It has been held that it is competent to show by parol 
that at the time a note was made it was agreed that it should 
be held for nothing on the happening of a certain event.^ But 
unless sudi event operated a failure of consideration, we cannot 
perceive upon what principle such a view could be taken."* The 
consideration of contracts in writing is in general open to in- 
qniry, and it is not an infringement of the rule excluding parol 
evidence to add to, vary, or contradict vnritings, to receive parol 
evidence of the actual consideration for the purpose of determin- 
ing its validity, or its failure, or that from any cause it is 
sufficient or insufficient to support the contract.^ 

Contemporaneous written agreements may be proven to con- 
trol the effect of negotiable or other instruments as between im- 
mediate parties and those having notice ;^ and a purchaser, after 
maturity, of a negotiable instrument would be bound by such an 
agreement when proven.*® 

98. Abbot* V. Hendricks, 1 M. & G. 7»5 (39 Eng. C. L.). See Small v. 
Clewlej, 62 He. 155. See on this subject Burke v. Dulaney, 163 U. S. 228, 14 
Sup. Ct. Rep. 816, and ante, § 68a. 

94. The Denver Brewing Co. y. Barets, 9 Colo. App. 341, 48 Pac. 834; 
Ostrander v. Snyder, 73 Hun, 378, 26 N. Y. Supp. 263; Bissinger v. Ouiteman, 
6 Hcisk. 277. 

95. See ante, § 68. 

9& 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, f 285; 2 Wharton on Evidence, f 1042; Ram- 
sey V. Toung, 69 Ala. 158 ; First Nat. iSank v. Nugent, 99 Ind. 160 ; Maltz v. 
Fletcher, 52 Mich. 484. When note specifies " legal services " as the consider- 
ation, it is competent for defendant to prove by parol that the agreement was 
that the payee was to attend to all her legal business in connection with her 
tdmiziistration of an estate, and that a large amount of work remained to 
be done, which he refused to do. See Jones v. Rhea, 122 N. C. 721, 30 S. E. 
^. Cases of fraud, illegality, or want of consideration are exceptions to 
nile that parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict a written 
instrument. See Carrington v. Waff, 112 N. C. 115, 16 S. E. 1008; Spies v. 
Roficnatock, 87 Md. 14, 39 Am. Rep. 268; Lone Star Leather Co. v. National 
Bank, 12 Tex. Ov. App. 128, 34 S. W. 297; Cashman v. Harrison, 90 Cal. 
297. 27 Pac. 283, citing text. 

97. Goodwin v. Nicker son, 51 Cal. 166; Lebanon Sav. Bank v. Penney 
(Minn.), 46 N. W. 331, citing the text; State Bank v. Burton-Gardner, 14 Utah, 
420, 48 Pac 402; Davis v. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 25 N. E. 862, 22 Am. St. Rep. 
5«5; Zimmerman v. Adee, 126 Ind. 16, 25 N. E. 828; Angaletos v. The 
Meridian Nat. Bank of Indiana, 4 Ind. App. 573, 31 N. E. 368. But an oral 
agreement will not suffice. See Beecher v. Dunlap, 52 Ohio St. 64, 38 N. E. 
7B5; Solenberger v. Gilbert, 86 Va. 778, 11 S. E. 789. 

9a. Munro v. King, 3 Colo. 238. 



104 FORMAL, BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 81&. 

§ 81b. Parol evidence is admissible to show that parties to 
bills and notes, apparently otherwise, are really in privity with 
each other ;^ and as between parties to show their real relations 
to each other ;^ and if there be a latent ambiguity to explain it.* 
And if the instrument be so obscurely written, or so mutilated 
or erased as to render its meaning uncertain, it is admissible to 
ascertain its terms.' There are also some cases in which patent 
ambiguities mav be* resolved by parol testimony, which are else- 
where considered.* As between privy parties a mistake in the 
execution of a written instrument — as for instance where the 
makers of a note intended it should be several as well as joint, 
but it was drawn only as a joint note — may be rectified in a 
court of equity, and the true intention shown.* And as between 
them, if the party executed the instrument supposing himself 

99. §§ 175, 176. 

1. Houck Y. Graham, 106 Ind. 195; post, $ 710. But in the hands of one 
who takes the paper for value before maturity without actual notice of any 
defect therein the law presumes, and the holder has a right to assume, that 
the relations to the paper of every party whose name appears on it are 
precisely what they appear to be. Cheever y. P. S. & L. E. R. Co., 150 N. Y. 
59, 41 N. E. 701, 55 Am. St. Rep. 646; Davis v. Bly, 32 App. Diy. 124, 32 N. 
Y. Supp. 299; Schram v. Werner, 85 Hun, 293, 32 N. Y. Supp. 995; Marsh 
v. Chown, 104 Iowa, 556, 73 N. W. 1046; Hardester v. Tate, 85 Mo. App. 624. 

2. Wharton on Evidence, $ 956. 

3. Paine v. Ringold, 43 Mich. 341; County of Des Moines v. Hinckley, 02 
Iowa, 642. And upon the same principle it is settled that the meaning of 
abbreviations may be explained by parol. See Lane v. Union Nat. Bank, 3 
Ind. App. 299, 29 N. E. 613; Merrill v. Sypert, 65 Ark. 51, 44 S. W. 462. 

4. Thompson v. Thome, 83 Mo. App. 241; §$ 418, 419. 

5. Rawstone v. Parr, 3 Russ. 424, 529; Chitty on Bills, 191 [*166], 213. 
[*184]; Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 252; Hopkins v. Insurance Co., 67 Iowa. 
204. In Massachusetts, held: that contemporaneous written agreement of a 
collateral and personal character not admissible in evidence for the puixKMe of 
defeating recovery on note. Woods Sons Co. v. Schaefer, 173 Mass. 443, 53 
K. E. 881, 73 Am. St. Rep. 305. But by the same court it has been held that 
a paper writing directed to payee and holder of a note and signed by person 
who has indorsed in blank before delivery and stating that he is an Indorser 
and waives demand, protest and notice is admissible in evidence for purpose of 
showing that he understood that he was an indorser. State Trust Co. v. Owen 
Paper Co., 162 Mass. 156; First Nat. Bank v. Watkins, 154 Mass. 385, 28 N. E. 
275. Same principle applicable to ownership of instrument. Taylor v. Smith, 
116 N. C. 631, 21 S. E. 202. Evidence of an oral agreement not generally 
admissible. Carrington v. Waif, 112 N. C. 114, 16 S. E. 1008; Hemrich v. 
Wist, 19 Wash. 516, 53 Pac. 710; Bryan v. Duff, 12 Wash. 233, 40 Pac. 936, 50 
Am. St. Rep. 889; Remington v. Dental Mfg. Co., 101 Wis. 307, 77 N. W. 178. 
In such case the mistake must be mutual. See Deering & Co. v. Russell, 5 



§ 82. BLBMENTB AND PHBA8E8 OF BILLS AND NOTES. 105 

liable for the amount, when in fact he was not, it is admissible 
to show it, the evidence going to prove want of consideration.* 
And if by mistake the instrument were given for too large an 
amount, the better opinion is that it may be shown, for as to the 
mistaken excess there is partial want of consideration.^ And, in 
general, parol evidence is admissible between the original parties 
to show fraud, accident, or mistake in the creation of the in- 
strument.^ Also to set up a verbal agreement^ by performance of 
whidi the written contract has been discharged.^ 

SECTION 11. 

THE FORMAL ELEICENTS AND PHRASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 

§ 82. We have now to consider : 1st, the date ; 2d, the amount ; 
3d, the time of payment; 4th, the place of payment; 5th, name 
of the drawer or maker; 6th, name of the drawee (if it be a 
bill) ; 7th, name of the payee ; 8th, the terms of n^otiability ; 
9th, the words of consideration ; 10th, the words of advice ; and 
Ilth, the attestation. 

N. Dak. 319, 96 K, W. 691; Johnson v. WUlard, 83 Wia. 420, 53 N. W. 776; 
Lee y. Percival, 85 Iowa, 639, 62 K. W. 643. 

6w Southall y. Rigg, 11 C. B. 481; Reardon y. Moriarty, 30 La. Ann. 120; 1 
Parsons on Notes and Bills, 201. 

7. Oaxon y. Demaree, 14 Bush, 173. See f $ 179, 201. But see Downs 
r, Webster, Brayt. 79; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 605. 

8. Eppe y. Waring, 93 Ga. 765, 20 S. E. 646; Roe y. Kiser, 62 Ark. 92, 34 
S. W. 534; Phoenix Ins. Ck>. y. Owens, 81 Mo. App. 201; Phillips y. Meily, 106 
Ps. St 536. 

0. In First Nat. Bank y. Watkins, 154 Mass. 386, 23 N. £. 275, it was held 
that an oral agreement operated at once, and in effect discharged the defend- 
ant from liability on the note, while in Hayes y. Allen, 160 Mass. 286, 36 N. £. 
852, H was decided that " It is no defense to an action on a promissory note 
for a yalid consideration, that subsequent to the making and deliyery of the 
iM)te, an independent oral agreement was made between the parties that the 
defendant would sell, and the plaintiff would buy, on January Ist next 
ensaing, certain shares of the capital stock of a corporation at a certain price 
per share and that the note should be taken as payment fyro tanto for the 
"hares." See Rogers v. Bedell, 97 Tenn. 240, 36 S. W. 1096. In this connection, 
eoart held: Eyidence that a check which had been dishonored was subse- 
quently deliyered by the payee to another person, under an agreement that 
the former should not be bound upon it, because of his indorsement made be- 
fore it was dishonored, is admissible to set aside the effect of the previous 
indoTMrnent. Epps y. Waring, 93 Ga. 765. 20 S. E. 646; Truman y. Bishop, 
S3 Iowa, 697, 50 N. W. 278 ; Howard y. Stratton, 64 Cal. 487. 



106 FORMAL SEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § So. 

§ 83. The date. — In the first place, as to the date, this i^i 
usually written in the right-hand corner of the instrument; but 
no date is essential to the validity of a bill or note ;*^ and it is of 
no consequence on what portion of the paper it is ^vritten.^* If 
there be no date, it will be considered as dated at the time it was 
made,^^ and parol e^ddence is admissible to show from what time 
an undated instrument was intended to operate,^' or to show that 
there was a mistake in the date.^* If dated, it will be presumed 
to have been executed on the day it bears date.** If undated, but 
containing a reference to date, it will date from delivery." When 
a note without date is made for another's accommodation, the 
maker authorizes him to fill up the date as he sees fit*" An 
indorsee has been allowed to prove against the maker a mistake in 
' the date of a note, though by such proof the maker was cut off 
from a defense valid as to the payee.*® But a maker would not 
be admitted to prove a different date as against an indorsee for 
value, who relied on its apparent date.** A mistaken date may 
be rectified in equity.^ Prima facie, an undated indorsement 
upon a note will be held to have been made as of the date of the 
note.^ 

10. Michigan Ins. Co. v. Leavenworth, 30 Vi. 11; Mechanics, etc., Bank t. 
Schuyler, 7 Cow. 337; Bylea [•74], 166; Edwards, 150; Bayley, 21; Stoiy on 
BiUs, § 37; Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Vandeveer ▼. Ogden, 1 Pen. (X. 
J.) 67, 

11. Shepherd ▼. Graves, 14 How. 505. 

12. Giies v. Bourne, 6 Maule & S. 73; De la Courtier v. Bellamy, 2 Show. 
422; Seldenridge v. Connable, 32 Ind. 375; Cowing v. Altman, 71 N. Y. 441: 
First Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 25 Mo. App. 174, citing the text; Button v. Belding, 
22 App. Div. 618, 48 N. Y. Supp. 981. 

13. Davis V. Jones, 25 L. J. C. P. 91, 17 C. B. 625 (84 Eng. C. L.) ; Richard 
son V. Ellet, 10 Tex. 190; Lean v. Lozardi, 27 Mich. 424; Cowing v. Altman, 
71 N. Y. 441 ; Thompson on Bills, 37. 

14. Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Biggs v. Piper, 86 Tenn. 580; Paige v. 
Carter, 64 Cal. 489. 

16. Kinsley v. Sampson, 100 111. 574; ante, f 65; Gage v. Anesilly, 57 Mo. 
App. 111. 

la Armitt v. Breame, 2 Ld. Raym. 1076; Styles v. Wardle, 4 B. & C. 908. 

17. Androscoggin Bank v. Kimball, 10 Cush. 373; Shultz v. Payne, 7 La. 
Ann. 222. 

18. Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Germania Bank v. Distler, 4 Hua, 633. 
10. Huston V. Young, 33 Me. 85. 

20. Paysant v. Ware, 1 Ala. 160. 

21. Dodd V. Doty, 98 111. 393. 



§§ 64, 65. ELEMENTS AND PHBASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 107 

§ 81. When the paper is payable at a specified time after date, 
it is ahnost indispensable that the date should appear on its face ; 
for otherwise, if it be a bill, the drawee cannot tell when it falls 
due, nor can an indorsee tell whether it be a bill or note. Nor 
can the holder know when to present it for payment, nor when 
it will be considered overdua When the bill or note is payable 
at sights or on demand, or on a certain day, the date is not so 
material; but to avoid difficulty, it should never be omitted.*^ 
And it has been questioned whether or not the drawee might not 
reasonably refuse to accept or pay an undated bill, on account 
of embarrassments, in respect to remedy and evidence, to which 
he might be subjected.^ 

§ 86. Ante-dating and post-dating. — Bills, checks, and notes 
are sometimes post-dated or ante-dated for purposes of conveni- 
ence;** and the fact that they are n^otiated prior to the day of 
date is not a suspicious circmnstance against which parties must 
ffuard.^ The indorsee of a bill which was post-dated, and in- 
dorsed by the payee, who died the day before the day of date, was 
held in an English case to have derived title through the indorser, 
and entitled to recover against the drawer,^ and this case has 
heen followed in the United States.^ So if a note bear date as 
of a time before the maker became of age, or as of a time when 
the maker was disqualified by being a feme covert, it may be 
shown, in answer to the plea of infancy or coverture, that the 
period of its actual date or delivery was when no such incapacity 
or disqualification existed.^ And if the bill or note be ante- 
dated or post-dated as of a time when it would be valid, it may 
be shown that it was dated or delivered at a time when the party 
had no capacity to enter into the contract, or that it came within 
the interdiction of a statute.® And whenever there is a false 

22. Story on Notes, % 4S. 

23. Story on Snis, f 37. 

24. Gray ▼. Wood, 2 Harr. & J. 328; Richter v. Selin, 8 Serg. & R. 425; 
McSparran v. Neely, 91 Pa. St. 315; Union Bethel v. Sheriff, 33 La. Ann. 
1461; Frazier v. Troy Print Co., 24 Hun, 281. But one of a firm of attorneys 
cannot post-date a check. Foster v. Mackreth, L. R., 2 Exch. 103. 

25. Brewster y. McCardel, 8 Wend. 478; Edwards on Bills, 151; Walker y. 
G«ne, 4 Whart. 252; McFall v. Murray, 4 Kan. App. 654, 45 Pac. IIM. 

2a Pasmore v. North, 13 East, 517. 

27. Brewster v. McCardel, 8 Wend. 478. 

2& Pasmore ▼. Korth, 13 East, 517; Story on Notes, % 48. 

29. Bayley v. Taber, 5 Mass. 286. 



108 FORMAL REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 86. 

date to evade the law, the instniment is void as to all parties 
having notice.^ If the date does not correspond with the declara- 
tion, the discrepancy must be explained.'^ But where it is alleged 
that a note was made on a certain day (and not that it bore date 
on that day) it is not a fatal variance that it bears date on an- 
other.^ When a person who agrees to become a party to a note, 
and the payee takes it on that assurance, the signature, thou^ 
actually signed long after the emission of the note, will relate 
back to its date, and bind accordingly .'* And in general, time is 
computed in respect to an ante-dated or post-dated note with refer- 
ence to the actual date it bears."* 

§ 86. Secondly, as to the amoimt or sum payable. — This is 
usually specified in figures in the upper, or lower, left-hand 
comer of the instrument, as well as in writing in the body of it- 
But these marginal figures are really not a part of the instru- 
ment, but merely a memorandum of the amount.*^ They do not 
seem, in general, to have been considered among merchants as of 
the same effect and value as the mention of the sum contained in 
the body of the bill. The first model of a bill of exchange pre- 
served to us, and which dates from the year a. d. 1381, does not 
possess them, though it does possess the votum or invocation with 
which merchants' bills used generally to commence, and which 
usually preceded the figures. The marginal figures were prob- 
ably added at a very early date in order that the amount of the 
bill might strike the eye immediately, and was in fact a note, 
index, or summary of the contents of the bill which followed.^ 
Where a difference appears between the words and figures, evi- 
dence cannot be received to explain it ; but the words in the body 

30. Serie v. Norton, 9 M. & W. 309; Byles on Bills [^TS], 168; Edwards, 
161. See Vail v. Van Doren, 46 Nebr. 450, 63 N. W. 787. 

31. Fitch V. Jones, 5 El. & Bl. 238; Fanshawe v. Peet, 2 H. A N. 1. 

32. Coxon V. Lyon, 2 Campb. 307; Smith v. Lord, 2 Dowl. & L. 759. 

33. Harringrton v. Brown, 77 N. Y. 72. See also Moies t. Bird, 11 Maaa. 
436; McNaught v. Mcaaughry, 42 N. Y. 22; Pauly v. Murray, 110 CaL 13, 
42 Pac. 313. 

34. Luce v. Shaff, 70 Ind. 152. 

35. Garrard ▼. Lewis, 10 Q. B. Div. 30, 37 Eng. 375; HoUen v. Davis, 59 
Iowa, 444, 43 Am. Bep. 690; Commonwealth v. Emigrants' Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 
12; Smith v. Smith, 1 R. I. 398. See post, $ 1499a, and notes. 

36. Garrard v. Lewis, supra; Marius, P. 34; Bettwes, § 193; Story on Bill^, 
I 42. 



§ 86a. ELEMENTS AND PHRASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 109 

of the paper must control f^ and if there is a difference between 
printed and written words, the written must control.^ If the 
words are so obscurely written or printed as to be indistinct, the 
figures in the margin may be referred to to explain them.*® If 
by inadvertence the amount is expressed in figures only, it will 
suffice.*^ 

^ 86a. Xarginal fignres of amount, with blank amount in body 
of initnunent. — It has been held in the United States, that where 
the figures were in the margin of the paper, and the amount was 
left blank in the body of it, it was fatally defective.** But in 

England, where the body contained the word " Fifty ," and 

was blank as to the denomination of money intended, and in the 
margin " £ fifty '* was written, it was held, and that too in a 
criminal case, that " Fifty " clearly meant " fifty pounds."** 

37. Payne ▼. Clark, 19 Mo. 152; Riley v. Dickena, 19 lU. 30; Mean v. Gra- 
luim, 8 Blackf. 144; Saunderson v. Piper, 6 Bing. N. G. 425; Fisk v. McNeal, 
23 Xebr. 728, citing the text. In Smith v. Smith, 1 R. I. 398, it appeared a 
bill bore the maiginal figures " $175.94," and on its face called for the pay* 
ment of ''three hundred and seventy -five 96-100," expressed as indicated. 
The derk of the bank where it was left for discount, observing the difference 
between the marginal figures and the words in the body, changed the marginal 
figure 1 to a 3, thereby conforming them. The court said : " We do not think 
the marginal notation constitutes any part of the bill. It is simply a memo- 
randum or abridgment of the contents of the bill for the convenience of 
reference. The contract is perfect without it. If this is so,, any alteration in 
the figures cannot avoid the contract, because it is no alteration, either ma- 
terial or immaterial, in the contract.'' Ghitty on Bills [*150i, 173; Thomp- 
■on, 40. 

38. 1 Parsons on Notes and BiUs, 28. 

89. Rney v. Dickens, 19 111. 29; Gorgan v. Frew, 39 III. 31; Ghitty on 
Bills [•1491, 172. 

40. Sweetzer v. French, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 262; Petty v. Fleispel, 31 Tex. 169; 
Wittey V. Mut. Life Ins. Go., 24 N. E. 141. Gorgan v. Frew, 39 111. 31, where 
there was in the margin " $500 " and in the body " five hundred,'' and it was 
held to mean " dollars." In Louisiana it is provided by the Revised Statutes 
of 1870, as follows: "Sec 319. No bill of exchange, promissory note, or 
other obligation for the payment of money, made within the State, shall be 
received as evidence of a debt, when the whole sum shall be expressed in 
fifrures, unless the same shall be accompanied by proof that it was given for 
the sum therein expressed. The cents or fractional parts of a dollar may be 
in figures." 

41. Norwich Bank v. Hyde, 13 Gonn. 279. But see Gorgan v. Frew, 39 111. 
31. See anU, | 76; Hollen v. Davis, 59 Iowa, 444 {Contra^ Strickland v. Hol- 
brook, 75 Gal, 268; Hulbert v. Grady, 68 Tex. 503). 

48. Rex V. Elliott, 2 East P. C. 951, 1 I^each C. L. 175. See ante, f 76. 



110 FORMAL BEQUISITEB OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 87. 

In a subsequent case it was held that the marginal figures were 
not a part of the bill.*® 

If it had really been the intention of the parties to the paper 
that the words should be written so as to conform to the figures^ 
it seems clear that there was implied authority to the holder to 
fill the blank accordingly.** Where the word " dollars " is left 
out, or the dollar-mark is omitted, they will nevertheless be sup- 
plied in this country,** where, under the Uke circumstances, 
" pounds " would be supplied in England.** Where " three hun- 
dred dollars " was expressed in a note, it was left to a jury to 
say whether or not " three, etc.," was intended,*^ and a note for 
" the sum of fifty-two, 25-100,** was held to denote, beyond ques- 
tion, that the fraction meant was " dollars." *® So where the 
note was for " one hundred and ninety-one, fifty cents," the word 
dollars was supplied.** 

§ 87. The term " dollars."— When the term " dollars " is used in 
any security for money given in any of the United States, it is 
Understood to mean dollars " of the lawful money of the United 
States ; " and extraneous evidence will not be permitted as a 
general rule to give it a different signification.^ But under 
peculiar circumstances, such as arose during the existence of the 
Confederate States, when the term " dollars " was applied to 
Confederate currency in all circles, parol of other evidence will 
be permitted to explain the true meaning and intent with which 

43. Garrard ▼. Lewis, 10 Q. B. Div. 30, 37 Eng. Rep. 375; f f 86, 844. 

44. Bank of Commonwealth v. Curry, 2 Dana, 142; Bank of Limestone t. 
Penick, 6 Mon. 25; Norwich Bank v. Hyde, 13 Conn. 279. 

45. Corgan v. Frew, 39 111. 31; Williamson v. Smith, 1 Coldw. 1; McCoy v. 
Gilmore, 7 Ohio St. 268; MurriU y. Handy, 17 Mo. 406; Coolbroth y. Purinton, 
29 Me. 469; Sweetzer v. French, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 262; Northrop v. Sanborn, 22 
Vt. 433; Booth v. Wallace, 2 Root, 247; Harman v. Howe, 27 Gratt. 677; 
State V. Schwartz, 64 Wis. 432. 

4a Rex V. Elliott, 1 Leach C. L. 176, 2 East P. C. 951; Phipps v. Tanner, 
3 C. & P. 488. 

47. Bumham v. Allen, 1 Gray, 469. 

4a MurriU v. Handy, 17 Mo. 406. 

49. Beardsley v. Hill, 61 Dl. 354. 

60. Bank v. Supervisors, 7 Wall. 26; Thorington v. Smith, 8 WalL 12; 
Omohundro v. Crump, 18 Gratt. 705 ; Lohman v. Crouch, 19 Gratt. 321 ; Smith 
V. Walker, 1 Call, 24; Commonwealth v. Beaumarchais, 3 Call, 107; Wilcoxen 
V. Reynolds, 46 Ala. 529; Hightower v. MauU, 50 Ala. 495; Stewart v. Sala- 
mon, 94 U. S. (4 Otto) 434. 



§ 87. ELEMENTS AI7D PHRASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. Ill 

it was employed.** Thus, in a case before the United States 
Supreme Court, involving the legal effect of a note for $10,000, 
dated Montgomery, Ala. (which was in the Confederate States 
during the war), November 28, 1864, Chief Justice Chase, de- 
livering the opinion of the court, said : " It is quite clear that 
a contract to pay dollars, made between citizens of any State of 
the Union, while maintaining its constitutional relations with 
the national government, is a contract to pay lawful money of 
the United States, and cannot be modified or explained by parol 
eridence. But it is equally clear, if in any other country coins 
or notes denominated dollars should be authorized, of different 
value from the coins or notes which are current here under that 
name, that, in a suit upon a contract to pay dollars made in that 
country, evidence would be admitted to prove what kind of dol- 
lars were intended, and if it should turn out that foreign dollars 
were meant, to prove their equivalent value in lawful money of 
the United States. Such evidence does not modify or alter the 
contract It simply explains an ambiguity which, under the gen- 
eral rules of evidence, may be removed by parol evidence." ^^ 
But the same tribunal has held that in the absence of parol testi- 
mony it would be presumed that a note payable in one of the 
Confederate States during the war, in " dollars," was presump- 
tively payable in lawful money of the United States.^ In such 
cases the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the sum 
payable in actual money must be ascertained by the value in 
coin, or l^al currency of the United States, at the time when, 
and place where, the note was made, of the Confederate note, 
equal in nominal amount to the number of dollars specified.** 

51. Lohman ▼. Crouch, 19 Gratt. 331; Thorington v. Smith, 8 WaU. 12; 
Donley v. TindaH, 32 Tex. 43; Stewart v. Salamon, 94 U. S. (4 Otto) 434; 
Oonfederate Note Case, 19 Wall. 648; WUmington, etc., R. Co. v. King, 91 
U. S. (1 Otto) 3. 

52. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 12. See Cook v. lillo, 103 U. S. (13 
Otto) 793. In New York held, that it was competent for an expert in hand- 
writing to explain a provision, that might be construed to mean January 
or July. See Dresler v. Hard, 127 N. T. 235, 27 N. E. 823. Following the 
principle that latent ambiguity can be explained by parol testimony, it has 
been held that the word ** duplicate," as used in a note, can be explained aR 
perfonning a similar office to that with which it is generally coupled in foreign 
Mils of exchange. See McCann v. Preston, 79 Md. 223, 28 Atl. 1102. 

58. The Confederate Note C^se, 19 Wall. 548. 

54. Stewart v. Salamon, 94 U. S. (4 Otto) 434 (1876). 



112 FOBMAI^ BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTE8. § 88. 

§ 88. Thirdly, as to the time of payment. — Bilk and notes are 
usually drawn payable at a specified time after date, or after 
sight, or at sight** Sometimes they are made payable on de- 
mand, or no time is specified, in which case on demand is under- 
stood." If the time of payment be left blank, as for instance if 

the instrument be payable " months after date," the like 

rule would apply.^^ A note promising to pay when the maker 
can make it convenient has been held payable within a reasonable 
time;^ and it seems that notes payable within a reasonable time 
are generally regarded as negotiable in the United States, the 
law fixing a definite limit to the period to be allowed."* 

When the word " month " is used in specifying the time of pay- 
ment, a calendar month is understood ; and the word " year '' 
signifies a calendar year.*^ 

In England, foreign bills are frequently drawn payable at 
usance or usances; and by usance is meant the common period 
fixed by customary dealing between the country of the drawer 

55. Story on Bills, § 50. In Martin v. Lewis, 30 Oratt. 672, the biU was 
dated August 20, 1866, and was drawn payable " on the Ist January, 1867." 

56. First Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 25 Mo. App. 174, citing the text; Collins v. 
Trotter, 81 Mo. 278, citing the text; Libby v. Mikelborg, 28 Minn. 38: Con- 
verse V. Johnson, 146 Mass. 22; Hall v. Toby, 110 Pa. St. 318; Roswell Mfg. 
Co. V. Hudson, 72 6a. 25; Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 Johns. 189; Herrick t. 
Bennett, 8 Johns. 374; Gaylord v. Van Loan, 15 Wend. 308; Cornell t. MouI- 
ton, 3 Den. 12; Keyes v. Fenstermaker, 24 Cal. 320; Freeman t. Ross, 15 
Ga. 252; Kendall v. Galvin, 15 Me. 151; Porter v. Porter, 51 Me. 376; Jones 
V. Brown, 11 Ohio St. 601; Bacon v. Page, 1 Conn. 404; Dodd v. Denny, 6 
Oreg. 157; Green v. Drebillis, 1 Iowa, 552; Stover v. Hamilton, 21 Gratt. 
273; Bowman v. McChesney, 22 Gratt. 600; Whitlock v. Underwood, 2 B. & 
C. 157; Aldous v. Comwell, L. R., 3 Q. B. 573; Abbott v. Douglas, 1 C. B. 491: 
Story on Bills, § 50; Chitty [*151], 174; and interest runs from date: Collier 
v. Gray, 1 Tenn. 110. See ante, §§ 40, 44. In Georgia held (construing section 
3700 of the Civil Code) that a prominsory note payable generally ** after 
date" and not otherwise expressing any time for payment, is payable on 
demand. Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 103 Ga. 604, 30 S. £. 558; Young v. 
Ellis, 91 Va. 301, 21 S. E. 480; Cowan v. Radford Iron Co., 83 Va. 550, 3 
S. E. 120: McVeigh v. Howard, 87 Va. 603, 13 S. E. 31; Omohundro v. 
Omohundro, 21 Gratt. 631. 

57. McLean v. Nichlen, 3 Vict. 107. But evidence will be received to identify 
such a note with one described in a mortgage as payable at a time therein 
specified. Stowe v. Merrill, 77 Me. 550. 

58. Lewis v. Tipton, 10 Ohio (N. S.), 88. See ante, § 44. 
50. Bowman v. McChesney, 22 Gratt. 609. See ante, § 44. 
00. See chapter XX, on Presentment for Payment. 



§§ 89, 90. ELEMENTS AND PHBASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 113 

and the country of the place of payment for the payment of 
bilk" 

§89. A note payable ''when demanded,"®^ or *' on call," ^ 
or when '' called for," " or *• on demand after date," ^ or " on or 
before " a specified time after date,^ is not distinguishable from 
one payable on demand. If payable with interest " twelve 
months after notice," the amount is due whenever demanded after 
notice has been given and twelve months have expired;*^ and 
where the expression used is " on demand with interest after 
four months,'' it is due when four months have expired.^ But, 
in such a case, it has been held that demand might be made im- 
mediately, but that interest would not begin until after the time 
specified.* 

§ 90. Fourthly. — The place of payment need not be specified in 
the bill or note, but very often is. If the drawer designate in 
the bill a place of payment, he will be discharged, unless it be 
there presented at maturity, as will also an indorser ;^® but as to 
the maker of a note or acceptor of a bill payable at a particular 
place, unless the restrictive words " only and not elsewhere " be 
added, no presentment there at maturity or afterward is neces- 

61. Story on BUIb, S 50. 

G2b Bownum v. McChesney, 22 Gratt. 609; Kingsbury v. Butler, 4 Vt. 46S. 

68. Bacon t. Bacon, 04 Va. 687, 27 S. E. 676. 

64. Crossmore v. Page, 73 Cal. 213 ; Dixon v. NuttaU, 1 Cromp., M. A R. 307 ; 
Bowman v. McCbesney, 22 Gratt. 609. See §§ 609, 1216. 

65. F^nno v. Gay, 146 Mass. 118; Hitchings v. Edmands, 132 Mass. 338; 
O'Nefll y. Magnor, 81 Cal. 631; Crim v. Starkweather, 88 N. Y. 339. See 
I 1215. 

66. Dnnkle v. Nichols, 101 Ind. 474. In Crim v. Starkweather, 88 N. Y. 
340, the words "on demand" were thought to render the note immediately 
due, while "on demand after date" require that some time should elapse 
before demand could be made. In New Jersey the Supreme Court comment- 
ing on this ease said: **The New York case comports more exactly with the 
tenns used, but plainly a demand forthwith after the day of the date would 
be in accordance with the contract," i. e., to charge an indorser. Foley v. 
Eoierald Brewing Co., 61 N. J. L. 430, 39 Atl. 650. Query: When does note 
"payable on demand and without grace after date" become due? Marshall 
4 Daley Bank v. Milwaukee Worsted MiUs, 84 Wis. 23, 53 N. W. 1126; Hull 
▼. Myers, 90 Ga. 674, 16 S. E. 653. 

67. aayton v. Gosling, 6 B. k C. 360. 
6a Hobarte y. Dodge, 1 Fairf. 156. 

60. Loring t. Gumey, 5 Pick. 15: Massie v. Boyd (Ala.), 6 So. 146. 
TO. See chapter XX, on Presentment for Payment. 

Vol. 1 — 8 



J 



114 FORMAL REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 90a. 

sary to charge him.^* Where no place of payment is expressed 
in a note, the place of payment is understood to be where the 
maker resides;*^ and if ^one be expressed in a bill, where the 
drawee resides is understood.^' 

Circumstances however may control this inference. Thus, if 
a bill were drawn upon a merchant abroad, addressed to him ** at 
Paris or at London,^' the place of payment would be deemed the 
place where he accepted it, whether Paris or London.^* If the 
drawer direct on the face of the bill that it be paid at his own 
house, it creates a presumption that it is an accommodation bill ; 
and that he was to pay it ; and unless he rebut it by showing that 
he really had effects in the drawee's hands, notice of dishonor 
will be dispensed with.^ 

The execution of a note, on its face payable at a bank, the 
place for the name of which is left blank, at a town named, 
authorizes the payee, before the maturity of the note, to insert 
the name of a particular bank, at such town, in the blank space, 
so that, whatever limitation of authority may have been imposed 
by the maker on the payee, and although, by the law of the State, 
no note is negotiable unless payable at a specified bank, the note 
will be negotiable, and governed by the law merchant in the 
hands of a bona fide indorsee. ^^ 

§ 90a. Place of payment as criterion of negotiability In some 

of the States of the United States the place of payment is made 

71. See chapter XX, on Presentment for Payment. 

72. Story on Notes, § 49; Oxnard v. Vamum, 111 Pa. St. 193; Overland 
Mining Co. v. McMaster, 19 Utah, 177, 56 Pac. 977; Christopherson t. Com- 
mon Council, 117 Mich. 125, 75 N. W. 445, citing text. 

73. Chitty on Bills (13th Am. ed.), [*151], 174; Story on Bills, § 4S; Scott v. 
Perlee, 39 Ohio St. 67, citing the text. 

74. Freese v. Brownell, 35 N. J. L. 285; Cox v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 
(10 Otto) 713; Story on Bills, § 46. In Indiana, under 1 Rev. Stat. 1S76, p. 636. 
§ 6, notes to be governed by the law merchant must show on their face that 
they are payable at or in a bank. Crossan v. May, 68 Ind. 242. If payable 
'* at Indiana Banking Company," it has been held that such expression is not 
equivalent to being payable at or in a bank. Rominger v. Keyes, 73 Ind. 376. 
So held also where the note was made " payable at the bank in Attica," though 
there was but one bank there. Hardy v. O'Brien, 91 Ind. 94; Butterfield v. 
Davenport, 84 Ind. 591. 

75. Sharp v. Bailey, 9 B. & C. 44. 

76. Gillasine v. Kelly, 41 Ind. 158; Spitler v. James, 32 Ind. 203. See 
post, i 144. 



§90a. EL£M£NTS AND PHRASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 115 

by statute the criterion of negotiability.^^ Where it is necessary 
to negotiability that the note be payable at a bank in the State, 

77. Thus in Alabama it was formerly provided by statute (Code of 1867, 
i 1833), that "Bills of exchange and promissory notes payable in money at a 
bank or private banking house are governed by the commercial law, except 
80 far as the same is changed by this Code." Subsequently, by Acts of 1872- 
1873, p. Ill, § 1833, of the Code of Alabama, was amended to read as follows: 
"Bills and notes payable at a banker's, or a designated place of payment, 
are negotiable instruments; bills of exchange and promissory notes payable 
in money at a bank, or a certain place of payment therein designated, are 
governed by the commercial law." This statute is expounded in Oates v. 
National Bank, 100 U. S. (10 Otto) 239. The qualifying words, ** payable in 
money at a bank, etc.," apply only to promissory notes, as bills of exchange 
sre controlled by the law merchant. Gwathmay v. Clisby, 31 Fed. 220. It 
lui8 been held in Georgia that a note payable at '* H. & J.," does not upon its 
face show that it was made for the purpose of negotiation at a chartered 
bank; and that the fact that suit thereon is brought against the indorsers 
by H. t J., and who are described in the pleadings as lately bankers doing 
business under the name, style, and firm of U. & J., is not sulficient to prove 
that H. & J. is a chartered bank. Salmons v. Hoyt, 53 Ga. 493. In Virginia, 
the Code (see Code of 1873, chap. 141, § 7) provides that "Every promissory 
note, or check for money, payable in this State (1) at a particular bank, or 
'2) at a particular office thereof for discount and deposit, or (3) at the 
place of business of a savings institution or savings bank, or (4) at the 
place of business of a licensed broker; and every inland bill of exchange pay- 
able in this State shall be deemed negotiable, and may, upon being dishonored 
for nonacceptance or nonpayment, be protested, and the protest be in such 
case evidence of dishonor in like manner as in the case of a foreign bill of 
exchange." The words italicized, *' at the place of business of a licensed 
broker" were interpolated by an amendment of the Code in 1866, at the in- 
stance of the Richmond brokers. Acts of Assembly, 1866, p. 490. The declara- 
tion that every inland bill of exchange payable in this State shall be deemed 
negotiable is only confirmatory of the common law. If payable in another 
State, its negotiability is to be determined there. In Freeman's Bank v. 
Ruckman, 16 Gratt. 126, the note sued on was executed in Boston, Mass., 
and was payable *' at either of the banking houses in Wheeling, Va." Judge 
Moncure said : " The note was not payable at a particular bank, or at a 
particular office thereof, etc. (following the statute), but *at either of the 
banking houses in Wheeling, Va.,' and therefore is not a negotiable note." 
It is not necessary in Virginia that the note, in order to be negotiable, be 
expressly payable in that State : ** It is certainly true that such note, etc., 
must on its face be payable in this State, because the section so requires. 
But it does not require that the State shall be expressly named in the note." 
McVeigh v. Bank of the Old Dominion, 26 Gratt. 830, Moncure, P. See 
Woodward v. Gunn, Va. L. J., April, 1878, p. 243. In this case it was held, 
that a note in which the place of payment, after the word ** at," in a printed 
note, was left blank, but was intended to be filled with the name of a bank 



116 FORMAL REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 91. 

and a note is made in the State, payable at a bank, it will be 
presumed that the bank is in the State.^® 

§ 91. Fifthly, at to the name of the drawer or maker. — It is of 

the first importance, indeed indispensable, that the bill or note 
should point out with certainty the party who enters into the 
contract imported by its terms,™ and if the promise be in the 
alternative, it is not a good negotiable instrument. Thus, where 
the note ran, " I, A. B., promise to pay," and was signed "A. B. 
or else C. D.," the court said: " This is not a promissory note 
against this defendant, within the statute of Anne. It operates 
differently as to the two parties. It is the absolute undertaking 
on the part of Comer (A.) to pay, and it is conditional only on 
the part of the defendant (B.), who undertakes to pay only in 
the event of Comer's not paying." ^ But it has been said that 
such an instrument would be a good note as against A.^ 

in Virginia, thus making the note negotiable, might under the peculiar cir- 
cumstances which appeared be treated as negotiable, although in fact the 
blank left for the place of payment was never filled. See Broun v. Hull, 33 
Gratt. 31, in which case the bank ceased to exist after the note was made; 
and the court, considering the effect of this fact on an indorsement after 
maturity, held that the indorsement amounted to a mere assignment, and 
was not negotiable. If the note had been transferred before maturity, the 
principle of the decision would have led to a like rulings the court being ot 
opinion that as the indorsement could not be payable at a bank, it could not 
be such in the sense of the law merchant. The case is a very peculiar one, 
and the decision questionable. The negotiable character of the paper having 
been fixed in its inception, query, if that character could be changed by sub- 
sequent events? 

78. McGuirk v. Cummings, 54 Ind. 246. See McVeigh v. Bank of Old 
Dominion, 26 Gratt. 830, and 9upra, 

70. Heman v. Francisco, 12 Mo. App. 660. In this case the note began, ** One 
day after date, we, jointly and severally * * * as principal, and John 
Francisco, J. B. Walsh (and others) as security ** * • promise to pay, etc/' 
It was signed by the parties described as sureties, but the name of the 
maker was omitted. It was held that the name of the maker could not be 
supplied by parol evidence, and that there being no primary obligation, the 
parties signing as sureties were not bound. In Aultman ft Taylor Co. ▼. 
Gunderson, 6 S. Dak. 226, 60 N. W. 859, 55 Am. St. Rep. 837, it is held that 
where a note is signed by one party in the lower right-hand comer and by 
another in the lower left-hand comer, evidence is admissible to show that the 
former was the maker, and the latter a witness. 

80. Ferris v. Bond, 4 B. & Aid. 679; Story on Notes, § 34; 1 Parsons on 
Notes and Bills, 36-37; Chitty [•140], 162. 

81. ^yles (Sharswood'B ed.) [•92], 190. See Edwards on Bills, 134. This 
seems to be there implied by the author's language. 



§ 92. ELEMENTS AND PHBA8ES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 117 

§92. The name of the drawer is absolutely needful upon the 
face of the bill; for without it the drawee cannot tell whether he 
should accept it or not, or any holder know to whom notice should 
be given. Indeed, it is paradoxical to speak of a bill without a 
drawer; for the very term imports a negotiable order drawn by 
aome one.® And even when such an instrument bears the name 
of one upon it who signs as acceptor, it is still nothing more than 
an inchoate paper, which cannot be sued upon unless a drawer's 
name is authoritatively inserted in it.® And it has been well 
said that it is '^ an abuse of terms to say that one was the acceptor 
of a bill which had never been drawn ; or, in other words, that 
he had accepted an ^ order,' or ' request,' that had never been 
made upon him." ** But authority to insert the name of a drawer 

82b Stoiy on BiUs, S 53; BeDJamin's Chalmers* Digest, 4. 

88. Tevis v. Young, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 199; May v. MUler, 27 AU. 615; Byles 
on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [*83], 178. In McCall v. Taylor, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 
30, 34 L. J. 365, C. P. Erie, C. J., said: " The instrument has no date and no 
drawer's name, but the defendant wrote his acceptance across it, and the 
question is, has the holder of such an instrument the right to declare on it, 
either as a bill of exchange or promissory note? It certainly is not a bill of 
exchange, nor is it a promissory note. It is, in fact, only an inchoate instru- 
ment, though capable of being completed." According, see Stoessiger v. 8. £. 
R. Co., 3 El. & Bl. 540, 23 L. J. Q. B. ; Regina v. Harper, Eng. H. Ct. Cr. 

C«8. ; Cent. L. J., Sept. 2, 1881, p. 174. 

84. Teris v. Young, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 199. In this case the instrument sued 
en was in the form of a biU, but no name was signed as drawer. It was 
dated Shelbyville, and addressed ** To W. G. Rogers, ShelbyviUe;" accepted 
by Rogers, and indorsed *' John Tevis." Suit was brought by Young against 
Tevis as indorser, and Rogers as acceptor; but it was held that the instru- 
ment was incomplete, and the action could not be maintained. It was said 
by the court, per Duval, J. (Simpson, J., dissenting): '*The fallacy of all 
Uie reasoning of counsel upon this point, consists in their failure to recognize 
the distinction between a bill of exchange and the mere form of such an in- 
strument. The words written upon the face of the paper in question are 
utterly inoperative, and without force or legal effect for any purpose as 
a commercial instrument, without the name of a drawer, either subscribed to 
the paper, or inserted in the body of it. Whether the name of the drawer, 
or of any subsequent party to the bill, be forged or fictitious makes no dif- 
ference as it respects the liability of the indorser. The indorsement implies 
an undertaking that the antecedent parties are competent to draw and ac- 
cept the bin, and that their signatures are genuine. But the indorsement 
does not imply an undertaking that the paper indorsed contains the names 
of aU the antecedent parties necessary to constitute a valid bill of exchange, 
when the face of the paper itself shows that it is blank as to all or any of 
such names. The indorsement of the paper would, doubtless, confer upon the 
party intrusted with it, authority to fill up the blanks with the names of 



118 FORMAL REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 93. 

to such an inchoate paper would be prima facie presumed ;*^ and 
if inserted without authority, the acceptor would be bound to a 
bona fide holder without notice.^ 

§ 93. Haker estopped to deny oapaoity of payee to indorse. — 

By executing a promissory note, the maker engages to pay the 
amount therein named to the bearer, if it be payable to bearer; 
to the payee or order, if it be payable to a particular person or 
order. By the very act of engaging to pay to a particular payee 
he acknowledges his capacity to receive the money; and also his 
capacity to order it to be paid to another.®^ And therefore if the 
maker is sued by an indorsee of the payee, he cannot defend 
himself on the ground that the payee had no capacity to indorse 
it by treason of being an infant,®® a married woman,®* a bank- 
rupt,^ a fictitious person,®^ a corporation without legal existence,^ 

any parties, at the discretion of the latter ; and so, the indorsement of a piece 
of blank paper would give the holder authority to make a bill of exchange, 
upon which the indorser would be liable, in the hands of an innocent holder 
for value, for whatever amount or in the names of whatever parties the bill 
might be subsequently drawn and accepted. But certainly it cannot be sup- 
posed that in either of the cases stated, the indorser could be held liable, as 
such, until the paper should have been drawn and executed and completed as 
a bill of exchange. It is not the mere authority to make a bill, which of 
itself creates the liability, but it is the execution of that authority." 

85. Harvey v. Cane, 34 L. T. R. 64 (1876). See post, S§ 142, 147, 843, 844; 
Scard v. Jackson, 34 L. T. R. 65, note a; Moies v. Knapp, 30 6a. 942; Ben- 
jamin's Chalmers' Digest, 35, 46; In re Duffy, 5 L. R., Ireland, 927; Uoppe v. 
Savage, 69 Md. 516. 

80. See these questions discussed, post, §§ 131, 132, 142, 147, 843, 844. The 
Scotch law accords. Smith v. Taylor, Ct. of Sess., Feb. 27, 1824; Ames on 
Bills and Notes, vol. 1, p. 884. And so also the Irish law. In re Duffy, 5 
L. R., Ireland, 92. 

87. Wolke V. Kuhne, 109 Ind. 313; Lewisohn v. Kent & Stanley Co., 87 
Hun, 267, 33 N. Y. Supp. 826, citing and approving the text; Mayer v. Old. 
57 Mo. App. 639, text cited. 

88. Taylor v. Croker, 4 Esp. 187; Jones v. Darch, 4 Price, 300; Grey v. 
Cooper, 3 Doug. 65. 

80. Smith v. Marsack, 6 C. B. 486, Wilde, C. J. ; Binney v. Globe Nat. Bank, 
6 Law. Rep. Annot. 381; Castor v. Peterson, 2. Wash. 204, 26 Pac. 223, 26 Am. 
St. Rep. 854, citing text. 

Oa Drayton v. Dale, 2 B. & C. 293. 

91, Lane v. Krekle, 22 Iowa, 404. See §S 136, 139. 

Od. Massey v. Building Assn., 22 Kan. 634; Stoutimore v. Clark, 70 Mo. 
477 ; National Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 60 Mo. 252 ; Farmers & M. Bank v. Needles, 
52 Mo. 17; City of St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; Ray v. Indianapolis Ins. 
Co., 39 Ind. 290; John v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Blackf. 367; Vater v. Lewis, 36 Ind. 
291; Snyder y. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 462; Greiner v. Ulery, 20 Iowa, 266; 



§ 94. BI^MENTS AND PHBASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 119 

or that such payee was insane at the time the note tras executed ;•* 
though, if the payee became insane after the execution of the 
note, his indorsement would then be a mere nullity, and if the 
acceptor knew of such insanity he would not be justified in mak- 
ing payment to any one whose title was affected by it.** There 
are authorities which hold that the insanity of the payee at the 
time the paper was executed may be shown ;* but they have been 
sharply criticised,^ and do not accord with the general principle 
of estoppel applied to negotiable paper. He is also estopped 
from showing that the payee was not the real party in interest 
at the time the note was executed.*^ 

§ 94. Joint and seyeral notes. — A note by two or more makers 
may be either joint, or joint and several. A note signed by more 
than one person, and beginning " we promise," is joint only.** 
A joint and several note usually expresses that the makers jointly 
and severally promise. But a note signed by more than one per- 
son, and beginning " I promise," is several as well as joint ;•• 
and so also is one signed by two makers, and running '^ we or 
either of us promise to pay." * And where two have signed a 

Bricklej v. Edwards, 131 Ind. 3, 30 N. K 708; Bleyins v. Fairlej, 71 Mo. App. 
2S9, 

93. See Smith v. Maraack, 9upra. 

94. See Bigelow on Estoppel, 460, 541; Alcock v. Alcock, 3 M. & G. 268 
(42 Eng. C. L.). The fact of lunacy came to defendant's knowledge pending 
the trial. 

95. Peaslee y. Robbins, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 164. 
98. Bigelow on Estoppel, 450, 451. 

97. Johnson v. Conklln, 119 Ind. 109; Blacker v. Dunbar, 108 Ind. 217. 

98. Barrett t. Funay, 38 Ind. 86; Thompson on Bills, 156; Taylor v. Reger, 
18 Ind. App. 466, 48 N. £. 262, 63 Am. St. Rep. 352; Dusenbury v. Albright, 
31 Xebr. 345, 47 N. W. 1047. But in Michigan a note commencing '' we promise 
to pay " with the further provision " to be paid by us in proportion to road 
tax in above-mentioned districts on lands " is held to create a separate and 
not a joint liability. Western Wheel Scraper Co. v. Locklin, 100 Mich. 339, 
58 N. W. 1117. 

99. Monson v. Drakely, 40 Conn. 552; Maiden v. Webster, 30 Ind. 317; Hol- 
man v. Gilliam, 6 Rand. 39; Hemmenway v. Stone, 7 Mass. 58; Barrett v. 
Skinner, 2 Bailey, 88; Marsh v. Ward, Peake, 130; Ely v. Clute, 19 Hun, 
35; Dill V. White, 52 Wis. 169; Partridge v. Colby, 19 Barb. 248; Ladd v. 
Baker, 6 Fost. 76; Lane v. Salter, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 239; Galway v. Mathew, 
I Campb. 482; Salomon v. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 49, 23 Atl. 716; Arbuckle v. 
TeniMoQ, 65 Vt. 207, 25 AtL 1095. 

1- Pogne V. Clark, 25 HI. 335; Harvey v. Irvine, 11 Iowa, 82; First Nat. 
Bank v. Fowler, 36 Ohio St. 524. 



120 FORMAL BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § S4. 

joint note, " payable to the order of myself," it means payable 
to the order of either, and the indorsement of either carries a 
good title.^ If a note running ** we promise " is signed by but 
one person, he is bound just as if the language were " I promise."' 
Where two sign the note as makers, they will be regarded prima 
facie as joint makers, and not as partners.* 

If a note be signed by a person in the name of a firm, whether 
that name represents in form more than one person, as ^^A. & 
Co.," or only one person, as **A.," it is in boA eases the joint 
note of the firm, and all the partners will be bound, whether the 
language be " I " or " We " promise.* If the note runs " We 
promise," and is signed "A. B., principal; C. D., surety," it is 
still the joint note of both ; and if it were written " I promise," 
and signed in the same manner, it would be the joint and several 
note of both.^ A joint and several note, thou^ on one piece of 
paper, comprises in reality and in legal effect, several notesJ 
Thus, if A. B. & C. make a joint and several note, there is a 
several note of each, and the joint note of all — in all, four notes.* 
The joint note may be valid, though the several notes are void.* 

d. First Nat. Bank v. Fowler, 36 Ohio St. 624. In Jenkins v. Bass (Ky.), 11 
S. W. 293, parol evidence was admitted to show which of the two was intended 
as payee. 

3. Whitmore v. Nickerson, 125 Mass. 496; Rice v. Gove, 22 Pick. 158; Hofanes 
V. Sinclair, 19 HI. 71. 

4. Ellinger's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 505; | 361, post, A joint and several note 
not negotiable binds makers proportionately. Groves v. SenteU, 153 U. S. 
465, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 898. Where one, for a valuable consideration, signs 
his name to a joint and several promissory note after it has been signed and 
delivered, he becomes, as between himself and the payee, a maker, and may 
be sued as such. He entered into a new contract with the holder of the note 
on a new and additional consideration. First Nat. Bank v. Cecil, 23 Oreg. 
58, 31 Pac. 61, 32 Pac. 393; Palmer v. Field, 76 Hun, 229, 27 N. Y. Supp. 
736. A joint and several note not negotiable binds makers proportionately. 
Groves v. SenteU, 153 U. S. 465. 

5. Salomon v. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 47, 23 Atl. 716; Rees v. Abbott, Cowp. 
832. 

6. Hunt v. Adanifl, 5 Mass. 358; Palmer v. Grant, 4 Conn. 389; TAtham v. 
Flour Mills, 68 Tex. 130, citing the text; Salomon v. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 47, 
23 Atl. 716. 

7. Fletcher v. Dyte, 2 T. R. 6; Byles, 78. 
a King V. Houre, 13 M. k W. 565. 

9. McClae v. Sutherland, 3 M. & Bl. 1 (77 Eng. C. L.); Byles (Sharswood'a 
ed.) [♦S], 79. 



§§ 95, 95a. ELEMENTS AND FHBA8ES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 121 

§ 95. Two or more drawert — The drawer of a bill is gener- 
ally a single person, or a copartnership firm, or a corporation. 
But two or more persons may unite in drawing a bill,*® and un- 
less they are partners, each is entitled to require demand and 
notice.** And they may make the bill payable to their joint 
order, or to the order of either of them, or to a third person or 
order. Sometimes another person unites with the drawer as a 
aurely, and such person is called a " surety drawer." Where 
several persons unite in drawing a bill of exchange upon a per- 
son in whose hands they have no funds, and the bill is accepted 
and paid, all of them are bound to the acceptor, and neither one 
of them can show that he signed as surety for the others, and 
that the drawee knew the fact when he accepted the bill.** The 
doctrine has been carried farther, and it has been held that if 
A. & B. draw on C. without having funds in his hands, and B. 
signs himself surety, both must be considered as drawers to all 
the parties to the bill, as well to the acceptor as the payee, for 
the acceptor may have been induced to accept the bill quite as 
much as the payee or other holder to take it, because B., as surety 
of A., was liable to him for payment in the character of joint 
drawers.*' 

In New York a different view is taken, on the ground that 
the liability of a joint drawer extends to the payee or subsequent 
holder alone, and even if he draws the bill, with the understand- 
ing that he is to be liable to the acceptor, such a contract would 
be a parol promise to pay the debt of another, and void under the 
statute of frauds.** But this view does not seem to us tenable.*' 

§98a* In an English case, M. and P. drew a bill payable to 
their own order on R. B., who accepted it, and J. B. indorsed it 
with the view of becoming surety for R. B. to the drawer. Action 
was brought against J. B. as an indorser, and also as a drawer. 
He was held bound in the latter character. Shee, J., said : " It 
is alleged that the defendant ^ indorsed,' which as a stranger he 

10. Suydam v. Westfall, 4 Hill, 211, 2 Den. 206; McMean v. Little, 3 Baxt. 
332. 

U. McMean t. Little, 3 Baxt. 332. 

12. Snydam v. Westfall, 4 Hill, 211, 2 Den. 205; Oyler v. McMurraj, 7 Ind. 
App. 645, 34 K. £. 1004. 

18. Swilley v. Lyon, IS Ala. 558; Story on Bills, S 420; Church v. Swope, 
38 Ohio St. 405, citing the text. 

14. Griffith V. Beed. 21 Wend. 602 ; Wing v. Terry, 6 Hill, 160. 

15. Story on Bills, f 420; Edwards on Bills, f 376. 



123 FOEMAL BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 96. 

oould not do. But the defendant here may be treated as dn»per: 
that is, as guaranteeing the payment of the bill by the acceptor.'' " 

§ 96. Sixthly: as to the drawee. — A bill of exchange being an 
open letter of request from the drawer to a third person, supposed 
to be under obligation to accept the bill, should be regularly ad- 
dressed to such person by his christian name and surname, and 
also by a designation of his place of residence; and if it is ad- 
dressed to a firm, the name of the firm should be expressed in the 
address.*^ 

Such at least is requisite to perfect the bill in a proper and 
business-like manner; and without such accuracy in the address, 
it does not appear who should be called upon to accept or pay it, 
or who would be justified in so doing. In an early English case 
it was held that it was not necessary that the bill should have 
a drawee;*® but that case has been distinctly repudiated, and both 
in England and in the United States it is settled doctrine that a 
drawee must be pointed out.*® Where a bill without a drawee 

Id. MathewB v. Bloxsome, Q. B., 33 L. J. R. 209. See Penny v. Innes, 1 
Cromp., M. & R. 439. 

17. Byles (Sharswood's ed.) [*S4], 179; Chitty on BUls (13th Ant. ed.) 
[*164], 18S; Story on Bills, | 58. 

18. Regina v. Hawkes, 2 Moo. C. C. 60. 

10. In Peto V. Reynolds, 9 Exch. 410, Alderson, B., said: "With respect to 
the question whether this instrument is or is not a bill of exchange, the case 
of Regina v. Hawkes is undoubtedly in point. I must own, however, that I 
now think I was wrong on that occasion. The case seems to have been 
decided on the ground that Milner v. Gray, 8 Taunt. 739, governed it ; and the 
fact was not adverted to, that Gray v. Milner may be thus explained: that a 
bill of exchange made payable at a particular place or house, is meant to be 
addressed to the person who resides at that place or house. Therefore, in 
that case, the bill was, on the face of it, directed to some one; and the court 
held, that, inasmuch as the defendant promised to pay it, that was condu- 
sive evidence that he was the party to whom it was addressed. But in the 
case of Regina v. Hawkes, the instrument was addressed to no one.'' See 
also Reynolds v. Peto, 11 Exch. 418; Watrous v. Hallbrook, 39 Tex. 572. In 
BaU V. Allen, 15 Mass. 435, Parker, C. J., says: *'The mere possession of a 
paper drawn in the form of an order, there being no drawee in existence, 
we think, cannot entitle the possessor to an action in any form, for the 
paper may have been carelessly dealt with as being imperfect, and may have 
come to the possessor by finding. It is enough for the purpose of justice 
that the holder of such a paper may entitle himself to recover, merely by 
showing that he paid for it, or that he came otherwise fairly by it; for it 
can rarely happen that he will be unable to produce the person for whom 
he received it. If the circumstances are such as induce him to dediae pro- 



§§ 97; 98. ELEMENTS AND FHBASS8 OF BILLS AND NOTES. 128 

was sued upon, it was well said : ^^ For want of a drawee it is 
incomplete as a bill of exchange; and for want of a promise it 
appears to us incomplete as a note.'' ^ But the bona fide holder 
of a check witthout a drawee^ which has been issued as a mem* 
orandmn of indebtedness, may recover on account for money had 
and received.^ 

§ 97. Where a bill was drawn payable to the drawer's order, 
and there was added " Payable at No. 1 Wilmot Street, opposite 
the Lamb, Bethnal Green, London," and was accepted by one 
Milner, it was held sufficient, upon the ground that it must be 
considered as directed to the person residing at that house, and 
acceptance by the defendant was acknowledgment iJiat he was 
intended as the drawee.^ Such a bill — or any accepted bill 
without a drawee — is considered by many authorities as defect- 
ive in its inception, but perfected by acceptance, the acceptor 
being estopped to deny that he was the drawee.^ And this seems 
the correct doctrine. But it was regarded in the case above cited 
as informal, but valid.** That decision however has been ques- 
tioned.^ If 'invalid as an acceptance the paper might be treated 
as a note.^ 



§ 98. Altenuitiye address of bill.— If the bill be addressed to 
A., or in his absence to B., it is sufficient and valid, and will bind 
whichever accepts as acceptor.^ And it has been thought that 
a direction to A. or B., in the alternative, would be sufficient if 

dudng evidence of the maimer in which the paper came to him, no prohable 
harm will be the result of his loss of the money." Story on Bills, S 58; 1 
Ptarsons on Notes and Bills, 61; 2 Robinson's Practice (new ed.), 144. 
SaO. Forward v. Thompson, 12 Up. Can. Q. B. 103, Draper, J. See § 97. 

21. Ellis ▼. Wheeler, 3 Pick. 19. See Ball v. AUen, supra, 

22. In Gray v. Milner, 8 Taunt. 739, 3 Moore, 90, Dallas, C. J., said the in- 
strument was clearly a bill of exchange ; and that, " it being directed to a par- 
ticular place, could only mean to the person who resided there ; and that the 
defendant, by accepting it, acknowledged that he was the person to whom it 
was directed." Cork v. Bacon, 45 Wis. 192. 

28. Wheeler v. Webster, 1 E. D. Smith, 3; post, § 486; Thompson on Bills, 
46; Grierson v. Sutherland, Scotch case therein cited; Cliitty on Bills [*164], 
IB8; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 288-289; Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 50. 

24. Gray v. Milner, supra; Edwards on IHUs, 174. 

25. Davis v. Clarke, 6 Q. B. 16. See also Peto v. Reynolds, supra; Story 
on Bills (Bennett's ed.), 58; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 62. 

2^ See (I 131, 132, 133, 485. 

27. Anonymous, 12 Mod. 447; Chitty, Jr., 216; Ames on Notes and BilU, 111. 



124 FORMAL B£QUISIT£S OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 99. 

both were at the same place at the same time.^ If the bill is 
drawn upon A., B., and C, it may be accepted by A. and B. only, 
and they will be bound as acceptors^ and it will be no variance 
to allege in the declaration that it was drawn upon A. and B., 
without referring to C.^ But if a bill is intended to be accepted 
by two persons, it should be addressed to both ; otherwise, thou^ 
accepted by both, it will bind only the drawee as acceptor, as there 
cannot be a series of acceptors.*® The drawer and drawee may be 
the same person, but such an instrument would be actionable with- 
out acceptance.** In case of uncertainty as to the real drawee 
attempted to be expressed or designated, or any ambiguity in the 
address of the bill, then, as in all cases of written contracts, 
extrinsic evidence is admissible to ascertain.** 

By the French and English usage, the address is uniformly at 
the left-hand lower comer, upon the face of the bill; but the 
Italians and Dutch, as it seems, write it on the back of the bill.** 
But it is not supposed that the place of the address is essential, 
if it distinctly appear what was intended. 

§ 99. Seventhly: as to the payee — The bill or note must point 
out with certainty the party who is to receive the money — that 
is, it must designate a payee.** But the payee need not be named 
in person, it being sufficient if some one be indicated. Tlius, if 
the instrument be payable to A. or bearer, or to bearer, or to the 
holder, or to order, it is intended to mean whoever comes in law- 
ful possession, and the holder may sue upon it.*^ In order to 
make a promissory note or other obligation for the absolute pay- 
ment of a sum certain, on a- certain day negotiable, it is not 
essential that it should in terms be payable to bearer or order. 

28. Marius on Bills, 16; Story on Bills (Bennett's ed.), § 58. 

29. Mountstephen v. Brooke, 1 B. & Aid. 224; Story on Bills, | 58. 

30. Davis v. Clarke, 6 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 16; Jackson t. Hudson. 2 Campb. 
447. See chapter XVII(, on Acceptance. 

31. See chapter V, on Irregular, etc., Instruments. 

32. Cork V. Bacon, 45 Wis. 192; McCuIlough v. Wainwright, 14 Pa. St. 171; 
Jackson v. Sell, 11 Johns. 201. 

33. Story on Bills (Bennett's ed.), § 58, note 1. 

34. Rich V. Starbuck, 51 Ind. 87. A promissory note payable to a person 
named therein " et aJ, or order " is not negotiable either at the common law 
or under the Code of Iowa. See Gordon v. Anderson, 83 Iowa, 224, 49 N. W. 
86, 32 Am. St. Rep. 302. 

36. Mechanics' Bank v. Straiton, 3 Abb. N. Y. App. 269; Hathwick v, Owen, 
44 MIrs. 803; Melton y. Gibson, 97 Ind. 158, citing the text; Tescher v. Merea, 
118 Ohio St. 586. 



§ 100. ELEMENTS AND PHBASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 125 

Any other equivalent expressions demonstrating the intention to 
make it negotiable will be of equal force and validity.** Hence, 
if the instrument be payable to a certain person or " assigns," " 
or to a certain corporation, or the holder, " if transferred by the 
signature of its president," it would be negotiable.** If the note 
be written " due the bearer $100, which I promise to pay A. or 
order," it is payable not to bearer, but to A. or order."^ And 
whenever a bill or note is payable to a certain person or order, it 
is the same as if expressed to be payable to the order of that per- 
son,** payable to whomsoever the payee named may by indorse- 
ment order it to be paid.** 

So the instrument, though not naming a payee on its face, yet 
if it furnishes a sufficient description by which he may be ascer- 
tained, it is sufficient; the maxim applying id cerium est quod 
cerium reddi potest^ Thus it suffices if it be payable to " the 
administrators of the estate of A. ;" ^ or to the " trustees acting 
under the will of A. ;" ** or to the " heirs of A.," though A. were 
then alive ;^ or to "A. or his heirs ;" ** or to the order of the person 
who should thereafter indorse it ;*^ for in all such cases the payee 
i» ascertainable.*® 



§ 100. niustrationi. — Where the writing ran, " I owe the estate 
of A. B. $190," it was held that no payee was sufficiently desig- 
nated, and it was inferred under the circumstances to be a mere 

86. County of Wilson v. National Bank, 103 U. S. 776. 

37. Porter v. City of JanesviUe, 3 Fed. 619. But see | 1496 and Cronin v. 
Patrick County, 4 Hughes, 529. 

38, County of Wilson v. National Bank, 103 U. S. 776. 
38. Cock V. Fellows, 1 Johns. 143. See post, § 102. 

40. Fisher v. Pomfret, 12 Mod. 126; Huling v. Hugg, 1 W. A 8. 418. 

41. See chapter XXI, on Transfer by Indorsement. 

42b Blackman v. Lehman, 63 Ala. 653; Clarke v. Marlow, Admr., 20 Mont. 
249, 50 Pac. 713. 

43. Adams v. King, 16 111. 169; Moody v. Threlkeld, 13 Ga. 56. 

44. M^ginson v. Harper, 2 Cromp. & M. 322. 

45. Bacon v. Fitch, 1 Root, 181. 

46. Knight v. Jones, 21 Mich. 161. 

47. United States v. White, 2 Hill, 59. 

4a See Chadwick v. Allen, 2 Stra. 706 (1726). Note ran: "I do ac- 
knowledge that Sir Andrew Chadwick has delivered me all the bonds and 
notes for which £400 were paid him on account by Col. Synge, and that Sir 
Andrew delivered me Major Graham's receipt and bill on me for £10. which 
£10. and £15 58., balance due Sir Andrew. I am still indebted and do promise 
<<> pay." Held a good note. See po8t. « 102. 



126 FOKMAL REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 101. 

memorandum of a balance due.*' But it has been held that a 
note regular in form, payable " to the estate of T. A. Thornton," 
might be sued on by Thornton's personal representative.** TTie 
contrary view however has been taken.*^ If a note is payable to 
A., and there are two persons of the same name, father and son, 
it seems that it would be prima facie payable to the father ;® but 
the son being in possession, and bringing the action, would be 
entitled to recover.®^ Wherever there is any misdescription or 
misspelling of the payee's name, it may be shown who was really 
intended." And extrinsic evidence is in general admissible as 
to the subject-matter and the parties, to make both certain and 
show what and who was intended.* 

§ 101. ninstrationg continued. — If the note were made paya- 
ble " to the secretary for the time being of a certain society,'' it 
would not be sufficient, as it would be a floating promise, the per- 
formance of which would be made to the person being secretari- 
at its maturity ;^ but if it be payable *^ to the now secretary " of 
a certain society, it would be different, as such person could Ix^ 
immediately and definitely ascertained.*^^ And if payable to tlie 

49. Bowles v. Lambert, 54 111. 239. 

50. Hendricks' Exrs. v. Thornton, 46 Ala. 300; Shaw y. Smith (Mass.), 
3 Law. Rep. Annot. 348. In New York held, that note payable ** to the order o! 
the estate of D. 6. Littlefield/' is a promissory note wnth a fictitious payee, and 
where it has been negotiated by the maker, is deemed as against him to be 
payable to the bearer. See Lewisohn v. Kent & Stanley Co., 87 Uun, 257, 
33 N. Y. Supp. 826. 

51. Tittle v. Thomas, 30 Miss. 132; Lyon v. Marshal, 11 Barb. 248, Edwards, 
J.: ''The instrument sued upon (by Lyon's representatives) was made pay- 
able to the ' estate of Moses Lyon, deceased,' and not to any person or per- 
sons by name. Such an instrument is clearly not a promissory note under 
the statute. But whatever it may be considered, it certainly is not a promi^ 
to pay the testator, for he is described as deceased. It could only be re- 
covered upon as a promise to pay some other person or persons. If it be 
regarded as a promise to pay the plaintiffs, as it was treated in this cai$e. 
there was no necessity for their suing in a representative capacity; and 
having done so unnecessarily, they are liable to pay costs, without a special 
motion or order for that purpose." 

62, Sweeting v. Fowler, 1 Stark. 106; Wilson v. Stubbs, Hobart, 330. 

53. Stebbing v. Spicer, 19 L, J. C. P. 24, 8 C. B. 827 (65 Eng. C. L.). 

54. Jacobs v. Benson, 29 Me. 132; Willis v. Barrett, 2 Stark. 29; Hall t. 
Tafts, 18 Pick. 455. 

55. Cork V. Bacon, 45 Wis. 192; Jackson v. Sell, 11 Johns. 201. 
50. Storm v. Sterling, 3 El. & Bl. 382. 

57. Ibid.; Robertson v. Steward, 1 M. & G. 611; Davis v. Garr, 6 N. Y. 
124; Rex V. Box, 6 Taunt. 325. 



§ 102. ELEMENTS AND PHRASES OF BILI^ ANIX NOTES. 127 

"trustees of W. Chapel, or their treasurer for the time being," 
it would suffice, as the trustees are the real payees, the treasurer 
being merely designated as their agent to receive pa;yTnent.^ So 
it would suffice if payable to *^ the treasurer or his successors in 
office " of a corporation named ; for the corporation would then 
be the real payee, and the treasurer its agent to receive payment.^ * 
And such would also be the effect of a note payable " to the 
treasurer of a corporation," the corporation, but not the treasurer, 
being named.*^ A note payable to " The People of Illinois " 
means to the State of Illinois, and the designation is sufficient.^ 
A note payable to " W. Lane, cashier First Nat. Bank of Leba- 
non," is payable to the bank.^ 

§ 102. Without definite payee the instrument is defective If 

no one be named or definitely referred to as payee, the instru* 
ment is fatally incomplete; and therefore '^$500 on demand, 
value received," ^ is mere waste paper, and so also papers run- 
ning " Good for one hundred and twenty-six dollars on demand," ** 
" pay on within $750," ^ and " pay to the order of on sight." ^ 
But " received of A. one hundred dollars, which I promise to pay 
on demand," ^ is regarded as sufficient, it being inferred that A. 
is the payee. It has been held that where the promise is to pay 
" you," as, for instance, where the paper runs, " I. O. U. the 
sum of $160, which I shall pay on demand to you," parol evi- 
dence would be admissible to explain who was meant.*® But as 
there is no certainty about the payee on the face of the paper, 

58. Holmes v. Jacques, 1 Q. B. 376. 

59. Fisher v. Ellis, 3 Pick. 322; Rogers y. Gibson, 15 Ind. 218; Patton v. 
Melville, 21 Up. Can. Q. B. 263; Sayers v. First Nat. Bank, 89 ind. 230. 

60. McBrown v. Corporation of Lebanon, 31 Ind. 268; Vater v. Lewis, 36 
Ind. 293. 

61. Eflley v. People of Illinois, 23 Kan. 510. 

62. Nave v. First Nat. Bank, 87 Ind. 204; Dutch v. Boyd, 81 Ind. 146; 
£rwin Lane Paper Co. y. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 130 Ind. 367, 30 K. E. 411; 
Darby v. Beraey Nat. Bank, 97 Ala. 643, 11 8o. 881. 

68. Gibson v. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 569. 

64. Brown y. Gilman^ 13 Mass. 158. See also Mayo v. Chenoweth, Breese, 
155: Mathews y. Redwine, 23 Miss. 233; Enthoyen y. Hoyle, 13 C. B. 373; 
Ru»h V. Haggard, 68 Tex. 675. 

65. Douglass v. WiUceson, 6 Wend. 637. 

66. Mcintosh y. Lytle, 26 Minn. 336. 

67. Green y. Dayies, 4 B. & C. 235; Ashby y. Ashby, 3 Moore k P. 186; 
Chadwick y. AUen, 2 Stra. 706. See ante, § 99. 

68. Kinney y. Flinn, 2 R. I. 319; Shackleford y. Hooker, 54 Miss. 716. 



128 fojelm:al requisites of biLls and xotes. § 103. 

and nothing from which he may be ascertained, such a paper 
could not consistently with accepted principles be held negotiable. 
Pothier puts a case quite similar : " If," says he, " the drawer 
should omit the name of the payee, but should draw the bill in 
this form : ' Pay a thousand livrcs at sight, value received of 
A. B.,' it appears to me reasonable to presume that the drawer 
intended that the bill should be payable to the person from whom 
the value had been received, as no other person is named to whom 
it ought to be paid." ^ He adds however that he has learned 
from an experienced merchant, that bankers would make a diffi- 
culty as to paying such a bill.^^ 

§ 103. Altematiye and joint payees. — A note payable to A. or 
to B. is not n^otiable, for, as said by Abbott, C. J., in an Eng- 
lish case : " For if a note is made payable to one or other of two 
persons, it is payable to either of them only on the contingency 
of its not having been paid to the other, and is not a good prom- 
issory note within the statute." ^^ The same \dews have obtained 
in some of the United States, but the cases are not uniform on 
the subject. In Illinois, where the note was payable to '' Oliver 
Fletcher or R. H. Oakes, administrators of Winslow Fletcher, 
deceased," Caton, O. J., said : " The instrument sued on was 
payable in the alternative to one of two persons, and for that rea- 
son is not a promissory note, and could not be sued on as such. 
* * * Here the promise was to pay Fletcher or Oakes: but 
which, is uncertain; which of them had the right to receive the 
pay is not specified, and the legal right to the money is not vested 
in either." ^* In New York it has also been held that a note 
payable in the alternative is not negotiable; but, value receive** 
being expressed, it might be sued on as a nonnegotiable note.'^ 
And likewise in New Hampshire, but it was thought that action 
might be brought in the name of all the payees."* If the instru- 
ment were payable to "A., B., and C, or to their order or the 
major part of them," it would suffice, and be negotiable, for it 

69. Pothier de Change, n. 31 ; Story on Bills, {| 55. 

70. Story on Bills, § 55. 

71. Blanckenhagen v. Blundell, 2 B. & Aid. 418 (1819): Osgood v. Pearson. 
4 Gray, 455; Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561; Story on Bills, f 54; 
Thompson on Bills, 12, 34; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 34. 

72. Musselman v. Oakes, 19 111, 81 (1857). 

73. Walrad v. Petrie. 4 Wend. 576 (1830). 

74. Willoughby v. Willoughby, 5 N. H. 245 (1830), approved in Quinby t. 
Merritt, 11 Humphr. 440 (1850). 



§ 1(M. ELEMENTS AND PHRASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 129 

would mean, as said by Wilde, B., " to pay to all three or their 
order, but I allow any two to sign for them all." ^ 

Opposing decisions have been rendered in South Carolina,^^ 
and by one of the Circuit Courts of the United States,''^ where it 
has been held that a note payable in the alternative is payable to, 
and may be sued upon by, either one of the payees ; but in neither 
case was the English precedent above quoted before the court 
And it may be considered as settled that a bill or note payable 
in the alternative is not negotiable. Where the paper is payable 
to joint payees, as, for instance, " to A. & B.," and they are not 
in fact partners, the indorsement by both of them is necessary to 
pass title.^^ Such a note imports a joint and coequal interest in 
the payees, but their real interest may be shown.''* 

§ IM. In the eighth place: as to the terms of negotiability. — 

It was formerly held that a bill payable to A. or bearer was not 
negotiable so as to enable the indorser to sue the drawer in his 
own name f^ but the contrary doctrine is now well established.®* 
It was also at one time a matter of doubt whether it was not 
essential to the character of a bill of exchange that it should be 
n^otiable — that is to say, that it should be payable " to A. or 
order," or " to A. or bearer," or " to bearer ;" for otherwise it was 
thought to be a mere common-law contract.®* But it is now well 

75. Watson t. Evans, 1 Hurl, k Colt, 663 (1863), distinguishing Blancken- 
luigen T. BlundeU, 2 B. & Aid. 418 (1819). See po8t, f 684; 1 Ames on Bills 
and Notes, 124; Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 7, 134. 

76. EJlis y. McLemore, 1 Bailey (S. C), L. R. 13 (1830). 

77. guiding v. Evans, 2 McLean, 130 (1840). 

78. Byhiner v. Feickert, 92 111. 305; post, § 684. 

79. Tisdale v. MaxTvell, 58 Ala. 40. 

80. Hodges v. Steward, 1 Salk. 125 (1691). 

81. Grant v. Vaughan, 3 Burr. 1516 (1764). In some States peculiar phrases 
are essential to negotiability of promissory notes. In Alabama, Indiana, and 
Virginia, they must be expressed to be payable in bank. (See ante, chapter 
on Formal Requisites, § 90 — Place of payment.) In Arkansas the words 
** without defalcation" must be used (see Act of April 10, 1869); and in 
Missouri " for value received " must be used in a note, but not in a bill; 
Lowenstein v. Knopf, 2 Mo. App. 159 (see Code of Missouri, chap. 86, S 16). 
In very many States similar statutes to that of Anne have been enacted. In 
nUnois a note payable to "A. or bearer," is not, under the statute, deemed 
negotiable. Garvin v. Wiswell, 83 HI. 218. See post, f f 663, 1496. In Indiana 
words of negotiability are necessary ; otherwise the instrument is classed with 
bank checks. Sinclair v. Johnson, 85 Ind. 627. 

82. Stoiy on Bills, f 60. 

Vol. 1 — 9 



130 FOSMAL BEQTJISITE8 OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 105. 

settled that it is not necessary to constitute a bill of exchange 
that it should be negotiable, and that it is entitled to grace, and is 
in all respects a bill, though containing no negotiable words." 
Nor are such words necessary to the character of a promissory 
note, nor to entitle it to grace, though wherever the statute of 
Anne has been adopted, or its principles obtain, they or some 
similar words are requisite to its negotiability;®* and they are 
also requisite to the negotiability of a bill, as without some sudi 
words making the instrument payable to A. or order, or to bearer, 
or to A. or assigns, the power to transfer it so as to give a right 
of action to the indorsee against prior parties is not imparted * 
But the indorsement would give a right of action against the 
payee himself, as it is, in legal effect, the drawing of a biU on 
the party who is, or is to be, primarily liable for payment, that 
is, the drawee, acceptor, or maker.®® 

§ 106. Note payable to certain person only, not negotiable. — If 

the bill or note be payable to a certain person only, it is not 
negotiable so as to bind the maker or drawer in the hands of any 
other person than the payee,®^ though the payee, if he indorse it, 
will be bound thereon to his immediate indorsee.®® If it be pay- 
able " to the bearer A.," it is the same as if simply payable to 
A., and is not negotiable.®^ But if payable to A. or bearer, it is 
the same as if payable to bearer,®*^ and so if payable to A. or 

83. Avereit'B Admr. v. Booker, 5 Gratt. 167; Michigan Bank v. Eldred, 9 
Wall. 544; Wells v. Brigham, 6 Cush. 6; Story on BiUs, § 60; Chitty on Bills 
[•159], 182. 

84. Ibid.; Smith v. Kendall, 6 T. R. 123, 1 Esp. 231; Rex v. Box, 6 Taunt. 
328; Burchell v. Slocock, 2 Ld. Raym. 1545; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 227: 
Bank of Sherman v. Apperson, 4 Fed. 25; Maule v. Crawford, 14 Hun, 193; 
Hisford v. Stone, 7 Nebr. 380; and words "without defalcation or discount" 
will not suffice. See Ames on Bills and Notes, 77, 78; Davis y. Helm, 34 Mo. 
App. 332. In Colorado words of negotiability are dispensed with altogether. 
Cowan V. Hallack, 9 Colo. 572; Graves v. Mining Co., 81 Cal. 304; Stebbins 
V. Union Pac. R. Co., 2 Wyo. Ter. 78; Curtis v. Hazen, 56 Conn. 146. 

85. Douglass v. Wilkeson, 6 Wend. 637; United States v. White, 2 Hill 
(N. Y.), 59; Story on Bills, § 60; National Bank v. Silke, 1 Q. B. 435 (1890). 

86. Hill V. Lewis, 1 Salk. 132; Ballingalls v. Gloster, 3 East. 482; Small- 
wood V. Vernon, 1 Stra. 478; Thompson on Bills, 53; Story on BiUs, f 60. 

87. Hackney v. Jones, 3 Humphr. 612; Warren v. Scott, 32 Iowa, 22; Hill 
V. Lewis, 1 Salk, 132; Ames on Bills and Notes, 132. See post, § 633; De Hass 
V. Dibert, 17 C. C. A. 79, 70 Fed. 227. 

88. See Story on Bills, §§ 119, 199, 202; De Hass v. Dibert, 17 C. C. A. 79, 
70 Fed. 227. 

89. Warren v. Scott, 32 Iowa, 22. 90. Eddy v. Bond, 19 Me. 461. 



§§ 106, 107. ELEMENTS AND FHBA8ES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 131 

holder." And if payable to order only, it has been held the same 
as payable to bearer.*^ But if payable " to the order of A." it 
is the same as if payable to A. or order.*® 

§106. Words of mq^tlAbility; form. — No precise form of 
words is necessary to impart negotiability. As has been said in 
Pennsylvania, " ' order ' or ' bearer ' are convenient and express- 
ive, but clearly not the only words which will communicate the 
quality of negotiability. Some equivalent words should be used. 
Words in a bill, from which it can be inferred that the person 
making it, or any other party to it, intended it to be negotiable, 
will give it a transferable quality against that person. The con- 
cession therefore may be made that if the makers of this note, 
having omitted the usual words to express negotiability, had said, 
' this note is and shall be negotiable,' it would have been nego- 
tiabk" " 

§ 107. Effeet of making note negotiable at particular bank. — ^A 

note may be made negotiable at one bank, and payable at another, 
the word " negotiable " not importing, as we have already seen, 
that the note is also payable wliere it is negotiable. But making the 
note n^tiable at a particular bank has in itself a meaning. 
And in a case where the note was negotiable at the Union Bank of 
Georgetown, in Maryland, but payable at the Bank of Potomac, in 
Alexandria, Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall said :^ " By 
making a note negotiable in bank, the maker authorizes the bank 
to advance on his credit to the owner the sum expressed on its 
face. It would be a fraud in the bank to set up offsets against 
this note in consequence of any transactions between the parties. 
These offsets are waived, and cannot, after the note has been dis- 
counted, be again set up." At the time of the decision, by the 
laws in force in Alexandria, Virginia, an offset might have been 
pleaded against the assignee, as the note was not under the Vir- 
ginia laws negotiable, while, if governed by the laws of Maryland 
in force in Georgetown, it was a negotiable note ; but the chief 
jnstice thought it entirely immaterial whether the question was 

91. Putnam t. Crymes, 1 McMuU. 9. See ante, S 99. 
9SL Davega y. Moore, 3 McCord, 482. 

93. Frederick y. Cotton, 2 Shower, 8; Smith y. Mcdure, 6 East. 47b; Story 
on BiUs, I 56; Howard v. Palmer, 64 Me. 86; Dugin y. Bartol, 64 Me. 473. 

94. Raymond y. Middieton, 29 Pa. St. 630, Porter, J. See United States 
▼. White, 2 HiU (N. Y.), 59; Stadler y. First Nat. Bank, 22 Mont. 190, 56 
Pw. Ill, 74 Am. St. Rep. 582. 

95. Mandeyille y. Union Bank, 9 Cranch, 9. 



J 



132 FOSMAL KEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 108. 

governed by the laws of the one State or the other, on the grounds 
above stated.^ In general, a note made n^otiable and payable 
at a particular bank may be negotiated anywhere.*^ 

§ 108. In the ninth place: as to the wordt of ooniideimtioii — 

The words " value received " are almost invariably expressed in 
bills of exchange and promissory notes, and they were at one time 
thought essential, by the custom of merchants, to impart nego- 
tiability to the instrument.^ But it is now well settled that 
they only express what the law itself implies from the execution 
of the paper ;** and it has been said that they " are only inserted 
ex majori cautela, in order that the payee may be able to recover 
upon it in an action for money lent, or money had and received, 
in case the instrument should be defective in other respects, as a 
bill of exchange.^ 

When the words " value received " are inserted in a note, it is 
obvious that they import value received by the maker from the 
payee ;* but where a bill is drawn payable to the order of a third 
person, they are ambiguous. 

They may mean either value received by the acceptor from the 
drawer, or by the drawer of the payee. But the latter is the 

9e. See posty f f 325-326. 

97. Warden v. Hughes, 3 Wend. 416; Schoharie Nat. Bank t. Bevard, 51 
Iowa, 258; Stadler v. First Nat. Bank, 22 Mont. 190, 56 Pac. HI, 74 Am. St. 
Rep. 582. 

98. By leg on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [*82], 176; Edwards on Bills, 56. See 
2 Bl. Com. 468. In Missouri they are essential to the negotiability of promis- 
sory notes under the statute, but not to bills. Code, chap. 86, % 15; Bailey 
V. Smock, 61 Mo. 213; Lowenstein v. Knopf, 2 Mo. App. 159; International 
Bank v. German Bank, 3 Mo. App. 362; Taylor v. Newman, 77 Mo. 263. Also 
to certificates of deposit. Savings Bank of Kansas t. National Bank of Com« 
merce, 38 Fed. 805. 

99. Poplewell v. Wilson, 1 Stra. 274 (1719); Macleod v. Snee, 2 Ld. Raym. 
1481 (1727) ; Grant v. Da Costa, 3 Maule & S. 351 (1815) ; Hatch v. Frayes, 11 
Ad. & El. 702 ; Underbill y. Phillips, 10 Hun, 591 ; KendaU v. Galvin, 15 Me. 
131 ; Townsend v. Derby, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 363; Hubble v. Fogartie, 3 Rich. 413; 
Leonard v. Walker, Brayton, 203; Arnold v. Sprague, 34 Vt. 402; Hughes 
V. Wheeler, 8 Cow. i/; People y. McDermott, 8 Gal. 288; 1 Parsons on Notes 
and Bills, 193; Bayley on Bills, 33; Thompson on Bills, 53; Byles on Bills 
( SharswoocL's ed.) [•82], 177; Chitty on Bills [•161], 185; Story on Bills, 
% 63 ; Story on Bills and Notes, § 51 ; Edwards on Bills, 56, 169 ; Culbertson 
y. Nelson, 93 Iowa, 187, 61 N. W. 854, 57 Am. St. Rep. 266, citing the text; 
Martin v. Stone, 67 N. H. 367, 29 Atl. 845. 

1. White V. I^dwick, 4 Doug. 247 (1785), Ashurst. J. 

2. Clayton y. Gosling, 5 B. ft C. 361 (11 Eng. C. L.), 8 Dowl. & R. 110. 



§§ 109, 110. ELEMENTS AND PHBASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 133 

more natural and probable construction; for, as said by Lord 
EUenborough, it is more natural '^ that the party who draws the 
bill should inform the drawee of a fact which he does not know, 
than one of which he must be weU aware. •' * When however the 
bill is drawn payable to the drawer's own order, the words " value 
received" must mean received by the acceptor of the drawer; 
and in such a bill, if the declaration state tiiat it was for value 
received by the drawer, it will be a variance.* A declaration in 
an action on a bill of exchange need not state that any value has 
been received, although it is stated on the face of the bill,'^ and 
the like rule applies to actions on notes.^ The statement of a 
particular consideration, as, for instance, '^ in consideration of 
foregoing and forbearing a certain action-at-law," ^ or " for work 
done on logs," ® in nowise affects the character of the instrument.* 

§ 109. In the tenth place : as to the words of advice — Sometimes 
the words " without further advice," or " as per advice," are 
inserted in bills of exchange; and when the latter appear, they 
warn the drawee not to accept or pay the bill until he receives 
advice respecting it. And if he disregards the intimation, he 
acta at his peril.^^ Such words are altogether unnecessary ; but 
by admonishing the drawee to await advice, they sometimes serve 
as safeguards against alterations ; and Mr. Chitty says that every 
prudent drawer ought to send a distinct letter of advice, and that 
no prudent drawee should accept without having previously re- 
ceived one, stating the sum for which the bill is drawn.*^ 

§110. In the eleventh place: as to the statement of account. — 

Words are frequently inserted in bills of exchange indicating the 
account to which they are to be charged (as, for instance, " and 
place the same to account cotton shipment as advised "),^^ in 
which event they do not at all affect the qualities of the paper.** 

3. Grant y. Da Costa, 3 Maule & S. 351. 

4. Higbmore v. Primrose, 5 Maule ft S. 65. 

5. Grant v. Da Costa, 3 Mai^le & S. 351. 
e. Underhm t. Phillips, 10 Hun, 591. 

7. Shenton v. James, 5 Q. B. 199. 

8. Sylvester v. Staples, 44 Me. 496; Corbett t. Qark, 45 Wis. 403. 

9. See ante, §$ 51, 60a, and post, §S 150, 797; Jury t. Barker, EL, 61. ft El. 
459; Biegler v. The Merchants' Loan ft Trust Co., 164 111. 197, 46 N. E. 512. 

10. Byles on Bills [*86], 182; Edwards on Bills, 172; Story on Bills, § 65. 

11. Chitty on BUls [•1621, 187. 

12. In re Entwistle, 3 Ch. Dhr. 477. 

13. See ante, § 51. 



134 FOBMAL BEQTJISITES OF BILI^ AND NOTES. §§ 111, 112. 

And they are by no means essential.^* If the drawee be debtor 
to the drawer, " put it to your account ^' is usually inserted ; but 
if the drawer is himself to be the debtor, he inserts, " and put it 
to my account" And where the amount is to be credited to a 
third person, " put to the account of A. B." ^* 

In Indiana, where A. sued B. upon the following instrument: 

**Mr. B.: 

" Sir, Please pay to 'A.' or order the sum of one hundred and nineteen 
dollars on said bill of 1% in. lumber, and oblige the firm of 

[Signed] "C. A Co." 

"I accept." [Signed] "B." 

it was held that the instrument possessed all the characteristics 
of a bill of exchange.^® 

§ 111. Provision in case of need. — Sometimes provision is 
made, in the bill, that the holder in case of need shall apply to 
another drawee ; by which is meant, that if the first drawee refuse 
to honor the bill, the second shall be resorted to. The holder is 
bound to apply to the party so indicated, and he may accept or 
pay the bill without protest. The usual form is : " In case of 
need, apply to Messrs. C. & D., at E./' ^"^ or in French, " au 
besoin chez Messrs. C. £ D., a E.'^ In the event that the party 
so pointed out pays the bill, the drawer will be liable to him for 
the full amount.^® 

§ 112. In the twelfth place: as to the attestation. — It is not 
necessary that there should be an attesting witness to a bill or 
note, though in many cases one is resorted to as matter of con- 
venience.*® Where the instrument is signed by a marksman, or 
by initials only, it may be important to have the act attested by a 
witness, in order to establish the genuineness of the mark or 
initials, and the occasion of its execution.^ When there is an 
attesting witness, the signature or mark to the instrument must 
be proved by him and not otherwise, unless by reason of his death, 

14. lAing V. Barclay, 1 B. A C. 392, 2 Dowl. & R. 630; Chitty on Billfl [•1«21, 
186; Jarvis t. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90. 

15. Martin y. Lewis, 30 Gratt. 672. 

10. Spurgin v. McPheeters, 42 Ind. 527. See Corbett t. Clark, 45 Wis. 403. 

17. Chitty on BiUs [•165], 189; Story on Bills, f 66. 

18. Ibid. 

19. Chitty on Bills (13th Am. ed.) [*166], 190; Story on Notes, | 64; 
Edwards on BiUs, 176; 1 Randolph on Commercial Paper, § 68. 

20. Story on Notes, § 64. 



§ 112. ELEMENTS Ain> PHRASES OF BILLS AND NOTES. 135 

absence from the country^ or other cause^ he cannot be produced 
at the trial ;^ but when such is the case, the next best evidence, 
that is, proof of the party's signature or mark, is not required, 
but proof of the attesting witness' signature is required instead.^ 
Sudi is also the rule where the attesting witness is blind ** or 
insane.^ Such are the rules of evidence of the common law on 
this subject In regard to promissory notes the rule has been so 
far relaxed, in some cases, that the admission of the party that 
he executed the instrument may be shown without calling the 
subscribing witness.* And the doctrine has been repudiated 
that those who attest such an instrument are agreed upon as the 
only witnesses to prove it; but only applied where the note is 
fully identified, and there is no chance of mistake in respect to 
what the party intended to admit.* In England, by statute of 
1854, such instruments may be proved by other than subscribing 
witnesses.^ 

If the attesting witness is not able to prove the signature, by 
reason of not having seen the party write, secondary evidence is 
admissible.* So, if he does not recollect his own signature, it 
may he proved by other testimony ;^ and so if his own testimony 
is not clear.*^ 

91. Greenleaf on Evidence, ff 669, $72; Chitty on BiUs [*166], 190; Ed- 
wards on Bills, 175; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 474; Stone t. Metcalf, 1 
Stark. 53; Lemon v. Deane, 2 Campb. 636; M'Craw v. Gentry, 3- Campb. 232; 
Burt V. Walker, 4 B. & Aid. 697; Richards t. Frankum, 9 Car. & P. 211; 
January y. Goodman, 1 Dall. 20S. 

2a Greenleaf on Evidence, f 575; Story on Notes, f 54; Chitty on Bills (13th 
Am. ed.) [•166], 190; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 480; Page v. Newman, 
Moody k M. 79; Kay v. Brookman, Moody & M. 286; Shiver v. Johnson, 2 Brev. 
397; Dunbar ▼. Harden, 13 N. H. 311; Lyons v. Holmes, 11 S. C. 429; Bussey v. 
Whitaker, 2 Nott k McC. 374. 

28. Wood V. Druiy, 1 Ld. Raym. 734. But see Cronk v. Frith, 9 Car. & P. 
197. 

24. Kelson v. Whittall, 1 B. & Aid. 22, note; Carrie v. Child, 3 Campb. 293. 

25. Shaver v. Ehle, 16 Johns. 291 ; Hall v. Phelps, 2 Johns. 451 ; Henry v. 
Kfiliop, 2 Wend. 575; Williams v. Floyd, 11 Pa. St. 499; Hodges v. Eastman, 
12 Vt. 358; Edwards on Bills, 176. 

26b Shayer v. Ehle, 15 Johns. 201; Edwards on Bills, 176. 

27. Edwards on Bills, 176. 

28. Lemon v. Dean, 2 Campb. 636. 

29. Shiver v. Johnson, 2 Brev. 397 ; Qaimby t. Bmxell, 16 Me. 470. 
80. Walker v. Warfidd, 6 Mete (Mass.) 466. 



136 FORMAL BBQUI8ITES OF BILLS AND NOTB8. §§ 113^ 114. 

SECTION III. 

THE SEVEBAIi FABT8 OF A FOBEIQN BILL GALLED A SET. 

§ 113. In order to avoid delay and inconvenience which may 
result from the loss or miscarriage of a foreign bill, and to facili- 
tate and expedite its transmission for acceptance or payment, the 
custom has prevailed from an early period for the drawer to draw 
and deliver to the payee several parts of the same bill of exchange, 
which may be forwarded by different conveyances, and any one 
of them being paid, the others are to be void. These several parts 
are called a set, and constitute in law one and the same bill.^ 
Sometimes there are four, but usually three parts.^ And if any 
person undertake to draw or deliver a foreign bill to another per- 
son, it seems that he is bound to deliver the usual number of 
parts,^ and it has been thought that the promisee may in such 
a case demand as many parts as he pleases.^ But this is ques- 
tionable.^ 

In Europe it is not unusual for the onginal bill to be for- 
warded for acceptance, and, in the meantime, a copy of it nego- 
tiated.*® But this practice is not followed in England or in the 
United States.*^ 

§ 114. ConditioiL in each part of set. — It is usual for the 
drawer, and to his protection it is essential, to incorporate in each 
part of the set, a condition that it shall only be payable provided 
the other remain unpaid ; in other respects the parts are identical 
in terms. Thus the first part should be expressed: " Pay this 
my first of exchange — second and third remaining unpaid : " 
where there three parts, or where there are four parts, there 
should be added, " Second, third, and fourth remaining unpaid." ® 

31. Story on Bills, | 66; Edwards on Bills, 161; Byles on Bills [*376j, 
655; Chitty on Bills [*155], 178; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 68, 60; Thomp- 
son on Bills, 46 ; Bayley on Bills, 24 ; 1 Randolph on Commercial Paper, § 237. 

32. Ibid. 

33. Kearney v. West Granada Mining Co., 1 H. & N. 412; Byles on Bills 
[*376], 655; Thompson on Bills, 46, 02. 

34. Chitty on Bills [*164], 178; Edwards on Bills, 161; Byles on Bills 
[•376], 666. 

35. Story on Bills, § 66. 

36. Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [*377], 557. 

37. 1 Parsons on Kotes and Bills, 60. 

38. Thompson on Bills, 45; Bayley on Bills, 24; Chitty on Bills [*165], 
178. 



§§ 115, 116. A FOREIGN BILL. 137 

This condition operates as notice to the world that all the parts 
eoDstitute one bill, and that if the drawee pay any part the whole 
ib extinguished.^ The condition should mention every part of 
the set, for if a person intending to make a set of three parts 
shoold omit the condition in the first, and make the second with 
a condition, mentioning the first only, and in the third take notice 
only of the other two, he might be obliged to pay each, for it 
would be no defense to an action by a bona fide holder on the 
second that he had paid the third, nor to an action on the first 
that he had paid either of the others.^ But an omission is not 
material perhaps which upon the face of the condition must neces- 
sarily have arisen from a mistake, as if mention of an inter- 
mediate part were omitted : for instance, " pay this my first of 
exchange, second and fourth unpaid/' ^ 

§ 116. The indorser or transferrer is bound to pass to his 
transferee all the parts of the bill in his possession, and he may 
be even liable to hand them over to a subsequent transferee if he 
have them still in his possession.*^ If the indorser improperly 
circulate two parts to distinct holders he may be liable on each.*^ 

§116. Only one part of set should be accepted. — The drawee 
should accept but one part of the set. And having accepted one 
part, he should not pay another part, for he would still be liable 
on the accepted part.** When however he pays the part he 
accepts, the whole bill is extinguished.*^ The party entitled to 
the bill should claim and hold all the parts, for payment of any 
one part to another person might defeat him.** But he to whom 
any one part of the set is first transferred acquires a property ini 
all the other parts, and may maintain trover even against a bona 
fide holder, who subsequently, by transfer or otherwise, gets pos- 



39. Holdsworth t. Hunter, 10 B. ft C. 449; WeUs v. Whitehead, 15 Wend. 
527; Kenworthy v. Hopkins, 1 Johns. Cas. 107; Durkin v. Cranston, 7 Johns. 
442: Ingraham v. Gibbs, 2 Ball. 134; Byles on Bills [*376], 555; Edwards on 
Bills, 161. 

40. Davison t. Robertson, 3 Dow. 218; Thompson on Bills, 45; Byles 
on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [•376], 656; Chitty [•155], 178. 

41. Chitty on Bills [•155], 178. 

4d. Pinard v. Klockman, 32 L. J. Q. B. 82; 3 Best ft Smith, 388 (113 Eng. 
C.L.). 

43. Holdsworth v. Hnnter, 10 B. & C. 449. 

44. Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. 4 C. 449; Chitty on Bills [•165], 178; 
Byles on Bills [•377], 556. 

45. IWd. 4a Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. ft C. 449. 



138 FOBMAL BEQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES. § 117. 

session of another part of the set.*^ For it is the duty of the 
person taking one part to inquire after the others; and he is 
advertised by their absence^ that they, or one of them, may be 
outstanding in the hands of a prior bona fide holder.** 

§ 117. Production of set in evidence. — In a suit against the 
drawer or indorser, the very part of the set which has been pro- 
tested must be produced,*® and there is authority for the view 
that in a suit against the indorser all of the set must be produced 
or their nonproduction satisfactorily accounted for.*^ But the 
United States Supreme Court has held that, when the part which 
has been protested is produced, it is sufficient The indorser may 
defend by showing that another person than the plaintiff has a 
superior adverse claim by reason of prior acquisition of another 
part, but unless he can prove that fact, the law protects him in 
making payment to the holder of the part protested, and requires 
no explanation from him as to the whereabouts of the other 
parts.**^ 

47. Perreira v. Jopp (1793), cited 10 B. & C. 450, note o; Cbitty Jr. 1477; 
Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & C. 449; Byles on BUls [•376], 656. 

48. Lang v. Smyth, 7 Bing. 284, 294 (20 Eng. C. L.), 5 M. & P. 78. 

49. WellB V. Whitehead, 16 Wend. 527; Johnson v. Offut, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 19; 
3 iCent's Com. 109. 

50. Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [•377], 557; 2 Starkie on Evidence, 142. 

51. Downes v. Church, 13 Pet. 206, Story, J. But see Wells v. Whitehead, 
16 Wend. 627, and Edwards on Bills, 163; Mmer v. Palmer, 68 Md. 452. 



CHAPTER lY. 

STAMPS UPON NBOanABLE INSTRUMENTS. 

§ 118. It seems that stamp duties were first levied on the con- 
tinent of Europe, in Holland, in the year 1624, being employed 
to raise revenues for the prosecution of war against Spain.^ In 
England, they were first imposed in 1694, war then being waged 
against France.* In the United States, individual States have 
at different periods imposed stamp duties; but such duties were 
never imposed by the Federal government until July 1, 1862, 
during the progress of the war against the Confederate States. 
At that time a sweeping act requiring deeds, bills, notes, checks, 
and other agreements and evidences of debt to be stamped, was 
passed, being framed for the most part upon the model of the 
British statutes. That act has been much curtailed by various 
amendments; and, at the present writing (April 1, 1875), the 
following provision of the act of Congress, approved February 
8, 1875 contains the only requisition on the subject of stamps 
applicable to n^otiable instruments, to wit: 

'' Be it enacted (section 15) that the words * bank check, draft, 
or order for the payment of any sum of money whatsoever, drawn 
upon any bank, banker, or trust company, at sight or on demand, 
t^^o cents,^ in Schedule B of the Act of June 30th, eighteen hun- 
dred and sixty-four, be and the same is hereby stricken out, and 
the following paragraph inserted in lieu thereof : 

" Bank check, draft, order, or voucher for the payment of any 
sum of money whatsoever, drawn upon any bank, banker, or 
trust company, two cents." 

§ 119. The original provisions of the Stamp Act can therefore 
be now of but limited interest to the legal profession and the 
public generally. But we append the portion of the schedule in 
force in 1870. Instrmnents executed before that time have gen- 
erally been barred by statutes of limitation.® 

1. Edwards on Stamp Act, 2. 2. Edwards on Stamp Act, 3. 

3. We transcribe also a few of the notes of Mr. Orlando F. Bump to his 
tnnotated edition of the Stamp Act: 

I. Bakk check, draft, or order for the payment of any sum of money 
vbttsoever, drawn upon any bank, banker, or trust company, or for any sum 

[139] 



140 STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE IN8TBUMBNT8. § 120- 

§ 120. Schedule B of the act of Congress of July 1, 1862, 
entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the gov- 
ernment, and to pay interest on the public debt," contained the 
provisions respecting the stamps required upon negotiable instru- 
ments, including bills of exchange, promissory notes, checks, 

exceeding ten doUftrs drawn upon any other person or personB, companies, or 
corporations, at sight or on demand, two cents. Checks drawn on a bank, by 
one of its proprietors for his daily expenses, or by its employees for their 
wages, must be stamped. Bout. 344. The check of a correspondent on money 
to his credit, to transfer an amount of money collected for him, must be 
stamped. Checks drawn by a State for moneys belonging to the State are 
exempt. Bout. 345. When a note is made payable at a certain bank, and a 
check is drawn upon the same bank for the amount thereof, the check must 
be stamped. When the note is simply charged at the bank to the account of 
the promisor without the use of a check, no stamp is required. Bout. 347. If 
a check upon a bookkeeper is used' merely as a memorandum to show the 
liability of the drawer to the firm of which he is a member, it is exempt: but 
if used for any other purpose, and especially if paid out or transferred, or 
negotiable to a third party, it should be stamped. Bout. 349. 

II. Bnx OF EXCHANGE (inland), draft, or order for the payment of any 
sum of money not exceeding one hundred dollars, otherwise than at sight or 
on demand, or any promissory note (except bank notes issued for circulation, 
and checks made and intended to be forthwith presented, and which shall be 
presented to a bank or banker for payment), or any memorandum, check, 
receipt, or other written or printed evidence of an amount of money to be 
paid on demand, or at a time designated, for a sum not exceeding one 
hundred dollars, five cents, and for every additional one hundred dol- 
lars, or fractional part thereof in excess of one hundred dollars, five cent^. 
Promissory notes for a less sum than one hundred dollars are exempt. A 
check payable at sight, but post-dated, which has been put into circulation 
prior to the day of its date, should be stamped the same as a promissory note 
and not as a check payable on demand. Pope v. Bumset et aJ„ 4 I. R. R. 
133. An agreement jointly and severally to pay the sums set opposite to the 
respective names of the makers is a promissory note. Ballard v. Bumside, 49 
Barb. 102. A due-bill is a promissory note under the Illinois statutes, and 
in that State should be so stamped. Jacquin v. Warren. 40 III. 461. 

III. Bill of exchange (foreign) or letter of credit, dra\^*n in, but payable 
out of, the United States, if drawn singly, or other^'ise than in a set of three 
or more, according to the custom of merchants and bankers, shall pay the 
same rates of duty as inland bills of exchange or promissory notes. If drawn 
in sets of three or more : for every bill of each set where the sums made pay- 
able shall not exceed one hundred dollars, or the equivalent thereof, in 
any foreign currency in which such bills may be expressed, according 
to the standard of value fixed by the United States, two cents. And 
for every additional one hundred dollars, or fractional part thereof 
in excess of one hundred dollars, two cents. A foreign bill of exchange 
or letter of credit, drawn in, but payable out of, the United States, if 



§ 120. 8TAKPS UPON NEOOTIABLS IN8TBTJMENT8. 141 

bills of lading, negotiable bonds, and certificates of deposit; and 
this schedule, either in its original form, or as subsequently 
amended, continued in force until the 1st day of October, 1872, 
when it was repealed, " excepting only the tax of two cents on 
bank checks, drafts, or orders," by the subjoined section of the 
act of that date/ 

drawn according to the custom of merchants and bankers, is liable to the 
same stamp tax as an inland biU of exchange, i, e., if drawn at sight or on 
demand, it is liable to a tax of two cents; if drawn otherwise than at sight 
or on demand it should be stamped at the rate of five cents for each one 
hundred dollars, or fractional part thereof. Duplicates require the same 
amount of stamps as the original. 9 I. R. K. 165. The phrase "letter of 
credit" is construed to refer to such letters as are equivalent to a bill of 
exchange, the payment of which is not contingent upon any other trans- 
action. Bout. 353. 

IV. Bill of ladiho or receipt (other than charter-party), for any goods, 
merchandise, or effects, to be exported from a port or place in the United 
States to any foreign port or place, ten cents. An inland or domestic bill of 
ladmg 18 exempt. 9 I. R. R. 161. A bill of lading to any port in British 
North America is exempt. 9 I. R. R. 161. 

V. BoHD of any description, other than such as may be required in legal 
proceedings, or used in connection with mortgage deeds, and not otherwise 
charged in this schedule, twenty-five cents. State and city securities are ex- 
empt from stamp duty. 1 I. R. R. 75; 3 I. R. R. 14. Bee Bump's ed. Stamp 
Act, 41. 

VI. Cebtificate of stock in any incorporated company, twenty-five cents. 

VII. Cebtificate of profits, or any certificate or memorandum showing 
an interest in the property or accumulations of any incorporated company, 
if for a sum not less than ten dollars and not exceeding fifty dollars, ten cents. 
Exceeding fifty dollars and not exceeding one thousand dollars, twenty-five 
cents. Exceeding $1,000, for every additional one thousand dollars, or frac- 
tional part thereof, twenty-five cents. 

VIII. Ckktificate. Any certificate of damage, or otherwise, and all 
other certificates or documents issued by any port warden, marine surveyor, 
or other person acting as such, twenty-five cents. 

IX. Cebtificate of deposit of any sum of money in any bank or trust 
company, or with any banker or person acting as such: if for a sum not 
exceeding one hundred dollars, two cents. For a sum exceeding one hundred 
dollars, five cents. When money is received as a bona fide deposit, against 
which the depositor may draw, the certificate need only be stamped with a 
two-cent or a five-cent stamp, according to whether the amount exceeds one 
handred dollars or not, even though the deposit draws interest for part or 
for all the time it remains in bank. 11 I. R. R. 4, 5. 

X. Cebtificate of any other description than those specified, five cents. 
4. 17 U. S. Stat, at Large, chap. 315, S 36, p. 256: " Sec. 36. That on and 

^^ the first day of October, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, aU the taxes 



142 STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE INSTBUMENTS. § 121. 

§ 121. It is not within the purview of this work to treat other- 
wise than incidentally and briefly on the subject of stamps. In 
" Edwards on the Stamp Act/' " Bump's Annotated Edition of 
the Stamp Act," and in, the appendix to the second volimie of 

imposed by stamps under and by virtue of Schedule B of section one hundred 
and seventy of the act approved June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
four, and the several acts amendatory thereof, be and the same are hereby 
repealed, excepting only the tax of two cents on bank checks, drafts, or orders: 
Provided, that where any mortgage has been executed and recorded, or may 
be executed and recorded, before the first day of October, Anno Domini eigh- 
teen hundred and seventy-two, to secure the payment of bonds, or obligations 
that may be made and issued from time to time, and such mortgage not 
being stamped, all such bonds or obligations so made and Issued on or after 
the first day of October, Anno Domini eighteen hundred and seventy-two, 
shall not be subject to any stamp duty, but only such of their bonds or obli- 
gations as may have been made and issued before the day last aforesaid : And 
provided further, That, in the meantime, the holder of any instrument of writ- 
ing of whatever kind and description, which has been made or issued without 
being duly stamped, or with a defunct [deficient] stamp, may make appli- 
cation to any collector of internal revenue, and that upon such application 
such collector shall thereupon affix the stamp provided by such holder upon 
such instrument of writing as [is] required by law to be put upon the same, 
and subject to the provisions of section one hundred and fifty-eight of the 
internal revenue laws." It is also provided by chap. 462, p. 250, Stat. 1873- 
1874, as follows: "An act to provide for the stamping of unstamped instru- 
ments, documents, or papers: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 
That all instruments, documents, and papers, heretofore made, signed, or 
issued, and subject to a stamp duty or tax under any law heretofore existing, 
and remaining imstamped, may be stamped by any person having an interest 
therein, or, where the original is lost, a copy thereof, at any time prior to 
the first of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-six. And said instruments, 
documents, and papers, and any record thereof, shall be as valid, to all in- 
tents and purposes, as if stamped when made, signed, or issued, but no right 
acquired in good faith shall in any manner be affected by such stamping as 
aforesaid. Provided, That, to render such stamping valid, the person desiring 
to stamp the same, shall appear with the instrument, document, or paper, or 
copy thereof, before some judge or clerk of a court of record, and before liim 
afiix the proper stamp; and the said judge or clerk shall indorse on such 
writing or copy a certificate, under his hand, when made by said judge, and 
under his hand and seal, when made by said clerk, setting forth the date at 
which, and the place where, the ?tamp was so affixed, the name of the per- 
son presenting said writing or copy, the fact that it was thus affixed, and 
that the stamp was duly cancelled in his presence. Sec. 2. That all laws or 
parts of laws in conflict with the above, are hereby repealed. Approved June 
23d, 1874." 



§§ 122, 123. STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE INSTBUMENTS. 148 

" Parsons on Notes and Bills," will be found very ample infor- 
mation respecting the act of Congress, with the decisions of the 
American courts, and also of the British courts in pari materia. 
Herein we shall only touch upon some of the most prominent 
and important points, the act no longer having application, except 
in a very limited degree, to the subject of this treatise. 

§ 122. As to the construction of the stamp act It will be ob- 
served that section 163 of the act relating to stamps does not in 
terms apply to instruments recorded, admitted, or offered as evi- 
dence in the State courts. It is therefore the conclusion of rea- 
son, and of the majority of the adjudicated cases, that Congress 
did not intend the act to apply to the State courts. It can have 
full operation and effect, if construed to apply to those courts 
only which have been established under the Constitution of the 
United States, and by acts of Congress, and over which the 
Federal legislature can legitimately exercise control, and to 
which they can properly prescribe rules regulating the course of 
justice, and the mode of administering the law.*^ A broader 
interpretation should not be given it. But the contrary view has 
been taken.^ 

§ 123. Where the stamp laws of the United States are recog^ 
nized as binding in the State courts, the defense that the note 
was not stamped until after it was issued, is not permitted to be 
made against a bona fide holder for value, who received it after 
it was stamped.^ Bearing all the appearances of an instrument 
conforming to every legal requirement, it would only facilitate 
fraud to permit this latent defect to be pleaded against an inno- 
cent party ; and therefore the instrument is enforced. 

5. Crreene v. Holway, 101 Mass. 243; Moore v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 49; Car- 
penter V. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Beebe v. Hutton, 47 Barb. 187; Daily v. 
Coker, 33 Tex. 815; Davis v. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499; Moore v. Moore, 47 
K. Y. 467; People v. Gates, 43 N. Y. 40; Griffin v. Ranney, 35 Conn. 239; 
Stmmons t. Halloway, 21 Mich. 162 ; Fifield v. Cluse, 15 Mich. 505 ; Clement v. 
Conradt, 19 Mich. 170; Bowen v. Byrne, 56 HI. 467; Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 
Ark. 398; Burson v. Huntington, 21 Mich. 415; Atkins v. Plympton, 44 Vt. 
21: Rfield t. Quse, 22 Ind. 276; RockweU v. Hunt, 40 Conn. 328; Duffy v. 
Hobson, 40 Cal. 240 (overruling HaUock y. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 171). " 

6b CSty of Muscatine v. Stememan, 30 Iowa, 526. 

7. Speny v. Horr, 32 Iowa, 184; Robinson v. Law, 31 Iowa, 9; Blackwell ▼. 
Denie, 23 Iowa, 63 ; Pearson v. Cummings, 28 Iowa, 344. 



144 STAMPS UPON NEOOTIABLB INSTBTJMBNTS. §§ 124, 125. 

If a bill or note be void for want of a stamp, the creditor may 
nevertheless recover on the original consideration.^ 

§ 124. There must be express proof that the stamp was omitted 
with the intent to evade the act, in order to invalidate th,e instru- 
ment The section of the Stamp Act declaring invalid the in- 
strumenty and subjecting to a penalty of $50 every person who 
makes, signs, accepts, or issues a bill, note, or draft for money 
without a stamp, ^^with intent to evade the provisions of this 
act," has been &e subject of numerous adjudications; and it is 
distinctly settled by weight of authority, that the words, " with 
intent to evade the provisions of this act," are connected with 
and qualify both the clause declaring the instrument invalid, 
and that imposing the penalty of $50.^ '^ It is a fraudulent and 
not an accidental omission at which the penalty of the statute " 
is levied, says the United States Supreme Court, concurring in 
effect with the State authorities herein cited.^^ 

§ 125. A number of cases concede that there must be a fraud- 
ulent " intent to evade the provisions of the act," in order for 
the instrument to be invalid, or the party to be subject to the 
penalty imposed; but maintain that the mere omission to put 
the proper stamp on the paper is presumptive evidence that such 
intent to evade t^e act existed, on the ground that every person 
must be presumed to know the law, and is chargeable with the 
duty to comply with it^^ But penal laws and laws concerning 
revenues must be strictly construed. Stamps are frequently 
omitted by inadvertence or mistake; and to throw the burden of 
proving the negative proposition that he had no intent to evade 
the act upon the party would be a harshness of construction un- 
familiar to the liberal principles of the common law. And the 

8. Wilson V. Carey, 40 Vt. 179. 

0. Harper v. Clark, 17 Ohio St. 190; Rhemstron v. Cone, 26 Wis, 1S3; 
Hitchcock V. Sawyer, 39 Vt. 412; Desmond v. Norris, 10 Allen, 260; Hallock 
V. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167; Sawyer v. Parker, 57 Me. 39; Kedlich v. Doll, 54 
N. Y. 241; Green v. Holway, 101 Mass. 243. 

10. CampbeU v. Wilcox, 10 WaU. 421. 

11. Harper v. Clark, 17 Ohio St. 190; Miller v. Morrow, 3 Coldw. 587; Becbe 
V. Hutton, 47 Barb. 187 ; Howe v. Carpenter, 53 Barb. 382 ; Miller v. Larmon, 
38 How. Pr. 417; Maynard v. Johnson, 2 Nev. 16; Wayman v. Torreyson, 
4 Nev. 124. 



§ 126. STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. 145 

cases which hold that the intent to evade the act must be affirm- 
atively shown, in addition to the mere fact of omission, com- 
mend themselves to favor as embodying the better opinion of this 
question.^ It will therefore never avail to demur to an un- 
stamped instruments^ 

§ 126. Power of Congress. — The gravest question which the 
Federal Stamp Act can give rise to is, whether or not Congress 
has the power so to frame its laws for taxation as to prescribe 
the formalities of contracts, and records, of process to institute 
suits, and of evidence to sustain them. The power of Congress to 
raise revenue by taxation is admitted; but still it must be re- 
membered that the Federal and State govermnents can neither 
trench upon the independent existence of the other, and must 
therefore exercise the powers existing in each, in a manner con- 
sistent with the legitimate freedom of both within their proper 
spheres. The United States Supreme Court has, accordingly, 
held that a State cannot tax the branches of the national banks, 
or their stocks and securities, or the salaries of government 
officers." And, reciprocally^ the doctrine has been established 
by preponderance in numbers of cases, and by the weight of 
reason and authority, that the Federal government has no power, 
in the form of taxation or otherwise, to prescribe the formalities 
of contracts, records, process, or evidence ; and that in so far as 
the Stamp Act of Congress, or any other act, undertakes so to 
do, it is unconstitutional and void.**^ They might therefore be 
admitted as evidence in State courts, although unstamped. But 

Congress has power to establish the rules of evidence in the 

^^^— ^"^™'^~^"^'^»*— ^~— ^■^^^» ^^— ^"^^^ ^— ^■— ^^— ^^^-— ^■™^~~*~— — ^*^— ^-^~"^^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^™^— ^— ^^^^^'""■~ ^^_^^^^_^ 

lai CampbeU v. WUcox, 10 Wall. 421; Daily v. Coker, 33 Tex. 815; Moore 
T. Moore, 47 N. Y. 467; Green v. Holway, 101 Mass. 243; Moore v. Quirk, 105 
Maas. 49; PoweU v. Feely, 49 111. 143; U. S. Express Co. v. Haines, 48 111. 
248 ; Craig v. Dimock, 47 III. 308 ; Morris v. McMorris, 44 Miss. 441 ; Davis v. 
Riehardson, 45 Miss. 499; Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167; MitcheU v. Mitchell, 
32 Iowa, 421, overruling former cases in order to conform with decisions of 
Supreme Court of United States (see former case of Muscatine v. Stememan, 
30 Iowa, 526) ; Trull v. Meneton, 12 Allen, 396; Lynch v. Morse, 97 Mass. 458; 
Saifc-yer v. Parker, 57 Me. 39; Whiteman v. Sheckle, 43 Mo. 537; McGovem 
V. Hoseback, 53 Pa. St. 177. 

13. CampbeU v. Wilcox, supra. 

14. McCullough V. SUte of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Weston v. City of 
Charleston, 2 Pet. 442; Dobbins v. Comrs. of Erie, 16 Pet. 435. 

15. Craig v. Dimock, 47 HI. 308; Latham v. Smith, 45 111. 29; Bumpass v. 
Taggart, 26 Ark. 398; Davis v. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499; Hunter v. Cobb, 1 
Bush (Ky.), 239. 

Vol. I — 10 



146 STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. §§ 127, 127a, 

Federal courts, and also to provide appropriate remedies by fine 
or imprisonment for the enforcement of its revenue laws.** 

§ 127. It has been held that the United States internal revenue 
laws were not in operation in the Confederate States during the 
war between them and the United States, and that it was there- 
fore unnecessary to stamp promissory notes made during the 
war, in order to give them validity.*^ 

§ 127a. Federal Stamp Act of 1898 — Negotiable Instruments 
taxed. — For the purpose of raising revenue to defray the ex- 
penses of the recent war with Spain, Congress, on the 13th day 
of June, 1898, enacted **An act to provide ways and means to 
meet war expenditures and for other purposes." 

The act referred to is essentially a revenue enactment, and 
among other things, negotiable contracts were made subject to 
revenue obligations. By the twenty-fifth section of this statute, 
it is provided: 

" Bank check, draft, or certificate of deposit not drawing in- 
terest, or order for the payment of any sum of money, drawn 
upon or issued by any bank, trust company, or any person or 
persons, companies, or corporations, at sight or on demand, two 
cents. 

"Bill of exchange (inland), draft, certificate of deposit draw- 
ing interest, or order for the payment of any sum of monev, 
otherwise than at sight, or on demand, or any promissory note, 
except bank notes issued for circulation, and for each renewal 
of the same, for a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, two 
cents; and for each additional one hundred dollars or fractional 
part thereof, in excess of one hundred dollars, two cents. And 
from and after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and 
ninety-eight, the provisions of this paragraph shall apply as well 
to original domestic money orders issued by the government of 
the United States, and the price of such money orders shall be 
increased by a sum equal to the value of the stamps herein pro- 
vided for. 

" Bills of exchange (foreign) or letter of credit (including 
orders by telegraph or otherwise for the payment of money issued 
by express or other companies or any person or persons), drawn 
in but payable out of the United States, if drawn singly or other- 

16. Craig v. Dimock, 47 111. 308; Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 170. 

17. McElvain v. Mudd, 44 Ala. 48; Susong v. Williams, 1 Heisk. 026. 



§ 1276. STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. 147 

wise than in a set of three or more, according to the custom of 
merchants and bankers, shall pay for a sum not exceeding one 
hundred dollars, four cents, and for each one hundred dollars or 
fractional part thereof in excess of one hundred dollars, four 
cents. 

*• If drawn in sets of two or more : For every bill of each set, 
where the sum made payable shall not exceed one hundred dol- 
lars, or the equivalent thereof, in any foreign currency in which 
such bill may be expressed, according to the standard of value 
fixed by the United States, two cents ; and for each one hundred 
dollars or fractional part thereof in excess of one hundred dol- 
lars, two cents. 

" Bills of lading or receipt (other than charter-party) for any 
goods, merchandise, or effects, to be exported from a port or 
place in the United States to any foreign port or place, ten 
cents." 

Section 14 provides: 

*^ That any bond, debenture, certificate of stock, or certificate 
of indebtedness issued in any foreign country shall pay the same 
tax as is required by law on similar instruments when issued, 
sold, or transferred in the United States ; and the party to whom 
the same is issued, or by whom it is sold or transferred, shall, 
before selling or transferring the same, afiix thereon the stamp 
or stamps indicating the tax required." 

§ 127b. Exemptions from stamp tax. — Section 17 provides as 

follows : 

"That all bonds, debentures, or certificates of indebtedness 
issued by the officers of the United States government, or by the 
officers of any State, county, town, municipal corporation, or 
other corporation exercising the taxing power, shall be, and 
hereby are, exempt from the stamp taxes required by this act: 
Provided, That it is the intent hereby to exempt from the stamp 
taxes imposed by this act such State, county, town, or other 
municipal corporations in the exercise only of functions strictly 
belonging to them in their ordinary governmental, taxing, or 
municipal capacity: Provided further. That stock and bonds 
issued by co-operative building and loan associations whose 
capital stock does not exceed ten thousand dollars, and building 
and loan associations or companies that make loans only to their 
shareholders, shall be exempt from the tax herein provided.'' 



148 STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 127 C. 

§ 127c. Penalties Sections 10, 11, and 13 provide the penal- 
ties for a willful evasion of the provisions of the act, and it 
should De noted that while the penalties for an intentional viola- 
tion of the law are severe, the law is quite liberal in cases where 
the party, through accident or ignorance, fails to affix the stamp 
required. Section 10 provides: 

" That if any person or persons shall make, sign, or issue, or 
cause to be made, signed, or issued, or shall accept or pay, or 
cause to be accepted or paid, with design to evade the payment 
of any stamp tax, any bill of exchange, draft, or order, or promis- 
sory note for the payment of money, liable to any of the taxes 
imposed by this act, without the same being duly stamped, or 
having thereupon an adhesive stamp for denoting the tax hereby 
charged thereon, he, she, or they shall be deemed guilty of a 
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a 
fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, at the discretion of the 
court." 

Section 11 provides: 

" That the acceptor or acceptors of any bill of exchange or 
order for the payment of any sum of money drawn, or purporting 
to be drawn, in any foreign country, but payable in the United 
States, shall, before paying or accepting the same, place there- 
upon a stamp, indicating the tax upon the same, as the law re- 
quires for inland bills of exchange or promissory notes; and no 
bill of exchange shall be paid or negotiated without such stamp ; 
and if any person shall pay or negotiate, or offer in payment, or 
receive or take in payment, any such draft or order, the person 
or persons so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not ex- 
ceeding one hundred dollars, in the discretion of the court" 

The proviso in section 13 is designed to provide a liberal 
remedy for all cases of ignorant or accidental failure to stamp 
the instrument. So much of it as bears directly upon this sub- 
ject reads as follows: 

*' Provided, That hereafter, in all cases where the party has 
not affixed to any instrument the stamp required by law thereon 
at the time of issuing, selling, or transferring the said bonds, 
debentures, or certificates of stock or of indebtedness, and he or 
they, or any party having an interest therein, shall be subse- 
quently desirous of affixing such stamp to said instrument, or, if 
said instrument be lost, to a copy thereof, he or they shall appear 



§ 127A STAMPS UPON NEGOTIABLE 'iNSTHUMENTS. 14*) 

before the collector of internal revenue of the proper district, 
who shall, upon the payment of the price of the proper stamp 
required by law, and of a penalty of ten dollars, and, where the 
whole amount of the tax denoted by the stamp required shall 
exceed the sum of fifty dollars, on payment also of interest, at 
the rate of six per centum, on said tax from the day on which 
siich stamp ought to have been affixed, affix the proper stamp to 
such bonds, debenture, certificate of stock or of indebtedness or 
copy, and note upon the margin thereof the date of his so doing 
and the fact that such penalty has been paid ; and the same shall 
thereupon be deemed and held to be as valid, and to all intents 
and purposes, as if stamped when made or issued: And pro- 
vided further. That where it shall appear to said collector upon 
oath or otherwise, to his satisfaction, that any such instrument 
has not been duly stamped, at the time of making or issuing the 
same, by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertence, or urgent 
necessity, and without any willful design to defraud the United 
States of die stamp, or to evade or delay the payment thereof, 
then and in such case, if such instrument, or, if the original be 
lost, a copy thereof, duly certified by the officer having charge 
of any records in which such original is required to be recorded, 
or otherwise duly proven to the satisfaction of the collector, shall, 
within twelve calendar months after the making or issuing 
thereof, be brought to the said collector of internal revenue to be 
stamped, and the stamp tax chargeable thereon shall be paid, it 
shall be lawful for the said collector to remit the penalty afore- 
said and to cause such instrument to be duly stamped." 

§ 187d. Partial repeal — Congress, by act approved March 2,. 
1901, repealed so much of the act of 1898 as imposed stamp tax 
upon checks, certificates of deposit, promissory notes, money 
orders, bills of lading, protest, and warehouse receipts, leaving 
all other negotiable contracts not herein incorporated, still sub- 
ject to the provisions of the Bevenue Act of June 13, 1898. 



CHAPTER T. 

IRREGULAR. AMBIGUOUS, AND FICTITIOUS INSTRUMBNTS, AND 

INSTRUMENTS IN BLANK. 



SECTION L 

IBBEGULAB AND AMBIGUOUS INSTRUMENTS. 

§ 128. Same persons as different parties. — Ordinarily, as we 
have already seen, a bill of exchange comprises three separate and 
distinct parties, a drawer, a drawee, and a payee. But some- 
times the drawer and payee are the same person, as where the 
drawer expresses the bill to be payable to himself only ; or to him- 
self or order. And in such case when indorsed, it becomes pay- 
able to order, or bearer, as the case may be.^ There is no doubt 
that there may be a bill to which only one individual is a party, 
as where the drawer draws a bill upon himself, payable to his 
own order ;^ and the same person may be drawer, payee, and 
acceptor.* The drawer may also draw a bill upon himself, pay- 
able to the order of a third party.* But in all cases where the 

1. Rice V. Hogan, 8 Dana, 134; Woods v. Ridley, 11 Humphr. 194; Hall v. 
Shorter, 46 Ala. 453; Columbus Ins. & Bkg. Co. y. First Nat. Bank, 73 Miss. 
96, 15 So. 138. 

d. Harvey v. Kay, 9 B. & C. 364; Ranters* Bank v. Evans, 36 Tex. 
592; Walton v. Williams, 44 Ala. 347; Randolph v. Parish, 9 Port. 76; Chitty 
on Bills (13th Am. ed.) [•26], 33; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) fSO], 
185. 

3. As in Lovejoy v. Spafford, 93 U. S. (3 Otto) 430. 

4. Roach V. Ostler, 1 Man. & Ry. 120; Dehers v. Harriott, 1 Shower, 163 
(1691); Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077 (1760); Mayor v. Hammond, Chitty, 
Jr. 1423; Harvey v. Kay, 9 B. & C. 364; French v. Gordon, 10 Kan. 370: 
Planters' Bank v. Evans, 36 Tex. 592. In this case suit was brought by an 
indorsee against the maker of the following paper: "Ten months after date 
pay to the order of myself, thirty-nine hundred dollars, for value received, and 
charge to account of yours, H. E. To M. C. &, Co., New Orleans, La. ; " which 
instrument was accepted by M. C. & Co., and bore the indorsement in blank 
of the maker and payee. Held, (1) that it was optional with the indorsee. 
either to treat this instrument as a bill of exchange, and sue the drawer and 
the acceptor together, or to treat it as a promissory note, and sue the maker 

[150] 



§ 129. IBBEGULAS AND AMBIGUOUS INSTRUMENTS. l&l 

drawer and drawee are the same person, the instrument, although 
it be declared upon as a bill, may be regarded as in legal effect a 
promissory note ; in which case the drawer will be bound without 
notice of dishonor;'' or what is the same as a promissory note, 
it may be regarded as an accepted bill, the drawer's engagement 
that he himself, who is the drawee also, will pay it, being equiva- 
lent to acceptance.® A third party writing his name across the 
face of such a paper could not be the acceptor, because not the 
drawee, and would be regarded as an indorser.'^ 

In practice, it is usual to declare upon such instruments as 
bills of exchange, not admitting the identity of the drawer and 
drawee.® And their identity, as it seems, must be proved by the 
party alleging it.* Where an agent draws a bill upon his prin- 
cipal by his authority, and for money obtained and used in his 
business, the drawer and drawee, it has been held, may be treated 
as in fact the same party, and held without demand or notice.*^ 

§ 129. Where a copartnership carries on business at two 
places, and at one place draws a bill upon the firm at another, 
the drawer and drawee being the same, the bill may be treated 
as a promissory note, or as a bill at the holder's option. Thus 
where the manager of a branch of a joint-stock bank drew a bill 
upon the bank at another place, Maule, J., said : ^^ This is a bill 
drawn by the whole company, acting by their directors upon the 

ilone. Held further, (2) that such an instrument, when delivered to the 
drawee, imports that it is not drawn against funds of the drawer, in the 
hands of the drawee. And as the indorsee acquired the instrument before 
maturity, it is further held, (3) that no defense was presented by an answer 
which aUeged that the defendant had settled it with M. G. & Co., the drawees, 
without notice of its transfer to the plaintiff. Evans, P. J., dissenting. 
Planters' Bank v. Evans, 30 Tex. 592. 

5. Roach v. Ostler, 1 Man. & By. 120; Randolph v. Parish, 9 Port. 78; 
Wardens of St. James' Church v. Moore, 1 Ind. (Carter) 289; Chicago R. 
Co. V. West, 37 Ind. 211; Planters' Bank v. Evans, 36 Tex, -592. See Arm- 
field v. AUport, 27 L. J. Exch. 42; Funk v. Babbitt, 156 111. 408, 41 N. £. 166, 
eituig text. 

6. Cunningham v. Ward well, 3 Fairfax, 466; Planters' Bank v. Evans, 36 
Tex. 592. 

7. Walton v. Williams, 44 Ala. 347. 

8. Roach V. Ostler, 1 Man. & Ry. 120; Harvey v. Kay, 9 B. & C. 364; Starke 
^' Cheeseman, Carthew, 509. 

9. Cooper t. Poeton, 1 Dur. 92. 

10. Raymond y. Mann, 46 Tex. 301 (1876) ; McCormick v. Hickey, 24 Mo. 



152 IRREGULAR INSTRUMENTS. § 130- 

whole company. It is a promise, acting on behalf of the com- 
pany, under the order of the directors, that the company shall 
pay. It is a promise made by the company at Dorking to pay 
in London. It is therefore in effect a promissory note." *^ In 
a recent case it was held that where a firm in one country drew 
upon the same firm in another country, and the bill was accepted, 
the paper was perhaps strictly a promissory note, but the holder 
might treat it either as a bill or a note; and where it appears to 
have been the intention that it should be n^otiable in the market 
as a bill of exchange, it should be so treated.*^ The same prin- 
ciple applies where the duly authorized officer of an inoarporated 
company draws on its behalf upon another officer, having custody 
of its funds; and the instrument may be treated as the note of 
the corporation.^' 

§ 130. Votes payable to the order of the maker. — A note must 
ha^e two parties, a maker and a payee, and a note made by a 
person payable to himself, or to himself or order, is a nullity ;" 
but if he then indorse it, it becomes in legal effect payable to the 
indorsement; and it may be so treated and declared on,** but 

11. Miller v. Thompson, 3 M. & G. 576; Funk v. Babbitt, 156 IlL 408, 41 
N. E. 166, citing text. 

12. Williams ▼. Ayres, 3 App. Cas. 133. 

13. See chapter XIV, on drafts or warrants of one corporate oflfioer upon 
another. In 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 63, it is said: " Where a duly au- 
thorized agent or officer of an incorporated company, draws in behalf of the 
company upon the treasurer, cashier, or other officer of the company who has 
the custody of^ and i» chaiged with the duty of disbursing, the company's 
fundfl, this is in substance, it should seem, a draft by the company upon 
itself, and may be treated either as a bill of exchange or a promissoxy note.'* 

14. Pickering v. Cording, 92 Ind. 306, citing the text; S. C, 47 Am. Rep. 
145. Such a note does not become an operative contract binding upon the 
maker and indorsers until it is negotiated by the maker. German Bank v. 
De Shon, 41 Ark. 337. Unindorsed it proved nothing. Myers v. Weger, 62 
N. J. L. 432. 

15. Norfolk Nat. Bank v. Griffin (N. C), 11 S. E. 1049, citing the text; 
Wood v. Mytton, 10 Q. B. 805 (1847) ; Hooper v. Williams, 2 Exch. 13 (1848). 
In this case Parke, B., said: "The prindpal question was, what the effect 
of this instrument was as it stood originally before it was indorsed, and 
whether it was, within the statute of 3 & 4 Anne, chap. 9, a good and valid 
note payable to the order of the maker. The opinions of this court and of the 
Queen's Bench as to this point are at variance with one another. In Flight v. 
Maclean, this court held, on special demurrer to the first count of a dedara- 
tion — stating a note payable to the order of the maker, and indorsed to the 
plaintiffs — that the count was bad, such a note not being within the statute 



§ 130. IKBEGULAB AND AMBIGUOUS IXSTRUMENTS. 153 

there are decisions to the effect that such instruments are nulli- 

of Anne. The case of Wood ▼. Mytton afterward came on in the Queen's 
Bench. It was an action on a similar note indorsed to the pUiintiff. After 
T«rdict for the plaintiff, a motion was made in arrest of judgment, and the 
court discharged the rule, holding, after a minute examination of all the 
proTisions of the statute of Anne, that such a note was within that statute, 
tnd assignable by indorsement. Though these decisions are not at variance, as 
will be afterward explained, the construction of the statute by the two courts 
differs. After a careful perusal of the statute, we must say that we do not 
think that it ever contemplated the case of notes payable to the maker's 
order, which are incomplete instruments, and have no binding effect on any 
one till indorsed. The Court of Queen's Bench thought that, though the first 
part of the first section- of- the statute of Anne applied only to notes payable 
to mother person, or his order, or to bearer, which notes it makes obligatory 
between the parties, yet that the second part applies to every note payable 
to iny person, and therefore includes a note payable to the maker or his order. 
It appears to us that this is not the meaning of this part of the section, 
which is, as we think, intended to make those instruments to which it had 
previously given an obligatory effect between the original parties transferable 
to third persons, so as to enable them to sue upon them as upon the transfer 
of hills of exchange. The previous part of the section had given to the payee 
when the note was made payable to another person, or to another person or 
order, and to the bearer, whoever at any time he might be, a right to sue, 
thus providing entirely for notes payable to bearer, whether in the hands ot 
the original or a subsequent bearer; and then the section proceeds to make the 
das9 of notes payable to a person or order transferable. We think that the 
legislature, by the second part of the section, could only mean to make that 
instrument which gave a right to sue assignable and no right to sue could exist 
m any one in the case of a note payable to the maker's order until the order 
wu made in the shape of an indorsement. Until that indorsement was made, 
it was an imperfect instrument, and, in truth, not a promissory note at all, 
&Bd consequently not transferable under the statute. What, then, is the effect 
of the indorsement to another person? We think it was to perfect the in- 
complete instrument, so that the original writing and indorsement taken to- 
gHher became a binding contract, though an informal one, between the maker 
iBd the indorsee; and then, and not till then, it became an assignable note. 
* * * It appears to us, then, that the instrument in this case was, when 
it first became a binding promissory note, a note payable to bearer, and 
consequently was property described in the declaration. This view of the 
e&se reconciles the decision of this court in Flight v. Maclean with that of 
the Queen's Bench in Wood v. Mytton, but not the reasons given for those 
decisions. In the case in this court, the declaration was bad on special de- 
morrer, as it did not set out the legal effect of the instrument. In that in 
the Queen's Bench, the motion being for arrest of judgment, the declaration 
was in substance good, for it set out an inartificial contract, which had the 
legal effect of a valid note payable, as stated on the record, to the plaintiff. 
The difference between the two courts in the construction of the statute is 
*^ DO practical consequence, as, in our view of the case, securities in this 
informal, not to say absurd form, are still not invalid; and it might be of 



154 IBBSGULAB INSTRUMENTS. § 130. 

ties.^^ Notes of this kind are of eommon use in England and in 
this country, and though characterized as " informal, if not 
absurd in form," they are designed to enable the holder to pass 
them without indorsement, and are simply roundabout notes 
payable to bearer. 

The fact that the name of the payee is the same as that of the 
maker does not show that they are the same person; on the con- 
trary, when such a note is sued on, it will be presumed that they 
are different persons until their identity is proved.^^ It might 
be urged with force that the maker is estopped from showing his 
identity with the pavee. ^Vhe^e the maker of a note pavable to 

civ i. V 

his own order, wrote and signed on the back thereof a certificate 
of the amount of his property, and delivered the same, it was held 
that the title did not pass, the words on the note not indicating 
his intention to make such an order as would create liability on 
his part.^® 

much inconvenience if they were, for there is no doubt that this form of 
note, probably introduced long after the statute of Anne — and for what good 
reason no one can tell — has become, of late years, exceedingly common; 
and it is obvious that, until they are indorsed, they must always remain in 
the hands of the maker himself, and so he can never be liable upon them.'* 
See Brown v. De Winton, 17 L. J. C. P. 280 (60 Eng. C. L.) ; Gay v. Lander, 17 
L. J. C. P. 287 (60 Eng. C. L.) ; Main v. Hilton, 64 Cal. 110; Bishop v. Rowe, 
71 Me. 263 ; Ck>mmonwealth v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 12 ; Commonwealth t. Dul* 
linger, 118 Mass. 439; Dubois v. Mason, 127 Mass. 37; Baldwin v. Shuter, 82 
Ind. 560; United States v. White, 2 Hill, 154; Plets v. Johnson, 3 Hill, 114; 
Hall V. Shorter, 46 Ala. 453; Muldrow v. Caldwell, 7 Mo. 563; Scull v. Ed- 
wards, 6 Eng. 24; Miller v. Weeks, 22 Pa. St. 89; Smalley v. ^Tiite, 44 Me. 
442; Woods V. Ridley, 11 Humphr. 194; Wilder v. De Wolf, 24 111. 190; 1 Par 
sons on Notes and Bills, 17, 18; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [♦61 75, [•87] 
183; Thompson on Bills, 52. But in Flight v. Maclean, 16.M. & W. 61, a de- 
murrer to a declaration charging that the defendant made his note, and 
thereby promised to pay defendant £500, and that the defendant indorsed the 
same to plaintiff, was sustained. As to the law of New York under statute 
and decisions, see S 136, and note. Bank of Winona y. Wofford et a/., 71 
Miss. 711, 14 So. 262; Columbus Ins. & Bkg. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 73 
Miss. 96, 15 So. 138. See Lowrie v. Zunkel, 49 Mo. App. 153; Barling v. Bank, 
1 0. C. A. 510, 60 Fed. 260, text cited; Bank v. Barling, 46 Fed. 357, citing text. 

16. Muhling v. Sattler, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 286. The utmost effect given such 
papers being to admit them as evidence of indebtedness from maker and 
indorser to indorsee, when executed for such indebtedness, and not then 
unless so averred. 

17. Cooper v. Poston, 1 Duv. 92; First Nat. Bank v. Payne, 11 Mo. 291, 
20 S. W. 41, 33 Am. St. Rep. 520, citing text. 

18. Pickering v. Cording, 92 Ind. 306. 



§ 131. IBBEOULAB AND AMBIGUOUS INSTBUMENT8. 155 

§131. Election of holder of ambiguoni mstruments — If the 
instrument be so ambiguous that it is doubtful whether it be a 
bill or note, the holder may treat it as either, at his election.^* 
Thus, where the form of the instrument was — 

"£4411«. 5d. London, 5th August, 1833. 

" Three months after date I promise to pa j Mr. John Bury, or order, forty- 
four poimds eleven shiUings and five pmce. Value reoeived. 

"John Bubt. 
"J. B. Grutherot, 

" 35 Montague Place, Bedford Place." 

and Gnitherot's name was written across the paper as an accept- 
ance, and Bury's name on the back as an indorsement; it was 
held that Bury might be treated either as a drawer of a bill on 
Grutherot, or as the maker of a note, and therefore was bound 
without notice of dishonor. Holroyd, J., said : " Until Gru- 
therot put his name to this instrument it was clearly in terms a 
promissory note, and having been once such, the fact of his hav- 
ing afterward put his name to it as acceptor cannot alter the 
nature of it" ^ Where the instrument ran, " On demand I 
promise to pay A. B., or bearer, the sum of £15 for value re- 
ceived," and was addressed in the margin to defendant, who 
wrote upon it "Accepted, J. Bell," it was considered to be in 
effect the note of Bell, as it contained a promise to pay, although 
in terms it was an acceptance.^ In Scotland, where J. D. ac- 
cepted a paper drawn on him payable to the order of A. D., but 
there was no subscription of a drawer's name, it was considered 
to contain all the essential elements of a promissory note.^ But 
such an instrument has been more properly regarded as inchoate, 
and although capable of being completed, to be in its inchoate 
form neither a bill nor a note.** 

Where the language is doubtful and will admit of more than 
one interpretation, as for instance, where under the signature of 
the maker there is a memorandum as to a lien on personalty to 
secure the note, record evidence is admissible to show the situa- 
tion, motives, and circumstances of the parties, and that a party 

19. Heue v. Bumpaes, 40 Ark. 547, citing the text. 

20. Edia v. Buiy, 6 B. & C. 433 (13 Eng. C. L.). 

21. Block V. BeU, 1 M. & R. 149. 

2&i Drummond v. Drummond, Ct. Seas., Feb. S, 1785; Morrisoii's Dicttonarj 
of Dedrions; Ames on Bills and Notes, vol. 1, p. 883. 
23. See cases died, S 92. 



166 IRREGULAR INSTRUMENTS. §§ 132, 133. 

who signed the memorandum intended to bind himself as a party 
to the note.^ 

§ 132. Further llluatrationB. — In another case, where the in- 
strument ran, " Two months after date I promise to pay A. B. 
or order £99, (signed) H. Oliver," and was addressed to J. E. 
Oliver, and accepted by him, it was held that it might clearly be 
declared on against H. Oliver as a bill of exchange. Erie, J., 
said : " It is not unjust to presume that it was drawn in this 
form for the purpose of suing upon it either as a promissory 
note or as a bill of exchange." And Crompton, J., said it was 
most important that the decision should not be impeached ; '^ that 
equivocal instruments of this kind, possessing the character botli 
of promissory notes and bills of exchange, may be treated as 
either." ^ 

§ 138. Sometimes the instrument is in the common form of a 
bill of exchange, except that the word " at " is substituted for 
" to " before the name of the drawee — as in the following 
manner : 

"Two months after date, pay to the order of John Jenkins £78 11^., value 
received. 

"Thos. Stevkns. 
"At Messrs. JoHiv Mebson & Co." 

Such an instrument may be undoubtedly declared on as a bill, 
and Lord EUenborough thought that perhaps it might be treated 
as a note, at the option of the holder.^ But in a later case, where 
an indictment for forgery described a similar instrument as a 
promissory note, it was held a variance, as it was in law a bill 
of exchange.*^ Mr. Chitty says that if such word '* at " before 
the drawee's name " is written so small, or in a manner so in- 
distinct, as to be capable of deceiving, it might be declared on 
either as a bill or as a promissory note after it is due." ^ But 

24. Bacon v. Dodge, 62 Vt. 461, 20 Atl. 197; Wing v. Cooper, 37 Vt. 16». 

25. Lloyd v. Oliver, 18 Q. B. 471 (83 Eng. C. L.). To same effect, see 
Brazelton v. McMurray, 44 Ala. 323. See ante, | 98; past, | 485. 

2a Shuttleworth v. Stevens, 1 Campb. 407 (1808). See also Allan v. Haw- 
son, 4 Campb. 115 (1814). 

27. Rex V. Hunter, Russ. & Ry. C. C. 611. 

28. Chitty on Bills (13th Am. ed.) [*25], 33, citing Allan v. Mawson, 4 
Campb. 115. See also Chitty, Jr., 11. - 



§S 134, 135. IRBEOUI.AB AND AMBIGUOUS INSTRUMENTS. 157 

the aulliority cited only establishes that it undoubtedly is a bill,^ 
and this seems to us the correct conclusion.*' 

§ 184. As to certifled notes. — There is no such thing as accept- 
ance* of a regular promissory' note ; but when notes are expressed 
to be payable at a particular bank,, there may be a custom for the 
bank, with the consent of tlie holder, instead of paying it at 
maturity, when authorized to do so, to pertify it as " good," in 
like manner as checks are often certified. By such certificate the 
bank becomes the debtor, and the parties to the note are dis- 
charged; and the bank cannot afterward say that there were no 
funds of the maker on deposit, or that it was not authorized so to 
appropriate them. In New York it has been said on this subject: 
'* The presentation of the note at the counter of the bank, on its 
maturity for payment, was in the ordinary course of business; 
and 80 was the certificate then and there indorsed by the teller, 
certifying that the same was good. The legal eflFect and force of 
such certificate was, that the maker had deposited funds in the 
bank to meet said note ; and that the bank then held the same in 
deposit for that purpose, and. would pay the amount upon request. 
* * * The indorsement was, in effect, an absolute engagement 
on the part of the bank to pay the note, and dispense with protest, 
or steps to charge the indorser; as much so as if the defendant 
had actually received the cash on the presentation of the note, 
instead of taking the certificate of the teller that the note was 
good."« 

§ 136. In another New York case it appeared that on the day 
a note payable at the Irving Bank matured, it was there pre- 
sented, certified as good, and charged in account against the 
maker. The maker had no funds to meet it, which was discovered 
before 3 o'clock on the same day ; and the Irving Bank requested 
that its certificate be canceled. This was refused ; whereupon the 
Irving Bank took up the note, presented it at its own counter, 
refused payment, and notified the indorsers. It was held that 
the Irving Bank, under these circumstances, had a right to re- 
tract its certificate ; that it took the note as a purchaser, and not 
as a payor, and that although it was marked as paid by the Sev- 

20. Allan y. Mawson, 4 Campb. 115, Oibbs, C. J. 

30. Benjamin's Chalmers' Digest, 4. 

31. Mead t. Merchants' Bank, 25 N. Y. 14S. 



158 IBBEGULAR INSTRUMENTS. § 130. 

enth Ward Bank, which held it for collection ; and therefore that 
the maker and indorsers were bound to the Irving Bank.^ 

SECTION 11. 

BILLS AND NOTES TO WHICIT THESE ARE FICTITIOUS OB NON- 
EXISTING PARTIES. 

§ 136. The law abhors fraud and discountenances the instru- 
ments by which it may be committed. For this reason bills and 
notes payable to fictitious payees are not tolerated, and will never 
be enforced, save when in the hands of a bona fide holder, who 
received them without knowledge of their true character. The 
appearance of a name upon the paper as a payee and indorser is 
naturally calculated, and has been often used as a means to give 
it fictitious credit, whereby innocent parties are beguiled into 
purchasing it. The use of fictitious names in this manner has 
been highly censured, and the person fraudulently indorsing such 
a name upon a bill or note, to give it currency, would be giiiltv 
of forgery.^ 

There is no doubt that if the holder knew, at the time that he 
took the bill, that the payee was a fictitious person, he cannot 
recover upon it against the acceptor, though the acceptor also 
had knowledge, of the fiction, it being the policy of the law to 
interdict the circulation of such deceptive instruments.** Xor 
is there any doubt that such a bill or note is, in effect, payable to 
bearer, and may be declared on as such by a bona fide holder, 
who acquired it in ignorance of the fact against the drawer,^ anJ 

32. Irving Bank v. Wetherald, 36 N. Y. 337; Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Toler, 
66 Hun, 187, 19 N. Y. Supp. 975. 

83. Thompson on Bills, 52. See chapter on Forgery. Meridian Nat. Bank 
of Indianapolis v. First Nat. Bank of Shelbyville, 7 Ind. App. 322, 33 N. K, 
247, 34 N. E. 608, 52 Am. St. Rep. 450, quoting text; The Governor v. Vagliano 
Bros., L. R., App. Cas. 107 (1891). 

34. Hunter v. Jeffery, Peake^s Adm. Cas.; Chitty, Jr., 587 (1797): Mine! 
V. Gibson, 3 T. R. 481 (1789), affirmed in the House of Lords, 1 H. Bl. 569; 2 
Brown's Pari. Cas. 48 (1791). 

85. CoUis V. Emett, 1 H. Bl. 313 (1790). See also Vere v. Lewis, 3 T. R. 
298 (1789), Lord Kenyon, C. J., Ashurst and BuUer, JJ.; Kohn v. Lewis, S. C\ 
of Kansas, reported in Cent. L. J. for Jan. 27, 1882, vol. 14, p. 76; Phillips v. 
Inthun, 18 J. Scott (N. S.), 694 (114 Eng. C. L.) ; 18 C. B. (N. S.) 694; 
Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) [•79], 173; Lane v. Krekle, 22 Iowa, 404: 
Forbes v. Espy, 21 Ohio (N. S.) 483; Rogers v. Ware, 2 Nebr. 29. In New 
York St is provided by statute that " notes made payable to the order of the 



8 137. FICTITIOUS PARTIES. 159 

also against the acceptor, supra protest, who is subrogated for the 
drawer.^ He may also recover against an acceptor in the ordi- 
nary course of business, if he knew of the fiction when he 
accepted, and thus participated in the fraud.'^ 

§ 137* Acceptor's knowledge of flctitioiiB payee. — In a case be- 
fore Lord EUenborough, where the acceptor of a bill having a 
fictitious payee was sued, it was held that such a bill was neither, 
in effect, payable to the order of the drawer, or to bearer, but was 
utterly void. On a motion for a new trial however Lord Ellen- 
borough said that he conceived himself bound by Minet v. Gib- 
son, and other cases which had been carried up to the House of 
I/)rds, and though by no means disposed to give them any ex- 
tension, yet if it had appeared that the acceptor knew the payee 
to be a fictitious person when he accepted, he should have directed 
the jury to find for the plaintiff.^ And this seems to be the rule 

maker thereof, or to the order of a fictitious person, shall, if negotiated by 
the maker, have the same eifect, and be of the same validity, as against the 
maker and aU persons having knowledge of the facts, as if payable to bearer " 
(1 Bev. Stat. 76S). The "knowledge of the facts" therein referred to has 
been held to be *' simply that the note is payable to the order of the maker, 
or of a fictitious person. If so payable, the name of the payee need not be 
indorsed thereon before negotiation. It must then be treated, without such 
indorsement, as a note payable to bearer." And it has been also considered 
that the indorser of such a note would not be permitted to deny knowledge 
of such facts to defeat the note, as he must be taken to have known the 
contents. Irving Nat. Bank v. Alley, 79 N. Y. 536. 

Se. Phillips V. Inthun, IS J. Scott, 604 (114 Eng. C. L.). 

37. Edwards on Bills, 125, 126, 128; Hunter v. Blodgett, 2 Yeates, 480; Tat- 
lock v. Harris, 3 T. R. 174, Chitty, Jr., 453 ; Vere v. Lewis, 3 T. R. 182, Cbitty, 
Jr., 455; Minet v. Gibson, 1 H. Bl. 569; Gibson v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 187, 288. 

Sa Bennett v. Famell, 1 Campb. 130 (1807). See also Were v. Taylor, 
therein cited, and Gibson v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 187. The reporter appends the 
following note to the case of Bennett v. Famell: ** Almost all the modern 
eases upon this question arose out of the bankruptcy of Livesay & Co., and 
Gibson k Co., who negotiated bills, with fictitious names upon them, to the 
amount of nearly a million sterling a year. The first case was Tatlock v. 
Harris, 3 T. R. 174, in which the Court of King's Bench held that the bona 
H( holder for a valuable consideration of a bill drawn payable to a fictitious 
P^son, and indorsed in that name by the drawer, might recover the amount 
of it, in an action against the acceptor, for money paid or money had and 
received, upon the idea that there was an appropriation of so much money 
to be paid to the person who should become the holder of the bill. In Vere v. 
Lewis, 3 T. R. 182, decided the same day, the court held there was no occasion 
to prove that the defendant had received any value for the bill, as the mere 
circiunstance of his acceptance was si^ficient evidence of this; and three of 



160 IRBEOULAB INSTBUMBNTS. § 138. 

of the English law, that the acceptor must have participated in 
the fraud in order to be bound.^ 

§ 138. We cannot perceive the wisdom or philosophy of apply- 
ing the test of the acceptor's knowledge of the fiction. K the 
holder has acquired the bill bona fide, he may certainly sue the 
drawer, although he makes title against him through the name of 
a fictitious person — why may he not also sue the acceptor, who, 
by acceptance, admits that he has funds of the drawer in his 
hands? If indeed the name of an existing payee were forged, 
the holder could not sue the acceptor, because the amount in his 
hands would be due such real payee. But where the payee's name 
is fictitious, the acceptor is not concerned; for the reason that 
the drawer has directed him to pay the money to the order of 
that name, and if it be thereon indorsed by the drawer or by the 
holder, he would fulfil that direction and discharge the debt.'^ 
The language of Lord Loughborough, in a previous case, is broad 
enough to sustain our view;*^ and the better opinion is, as it 

the judges thought the plaintiff might recover on a count which stated that 
the biU was drawn payable to bearer. Minet v. Gibson, 3 T. K. 481, put this 
point directly in issue, and the unanimous opinion of the court was, that 
where the circumstance of the payee being a fictitious person is known to the 
acceptor, the bill is in effect payable to bearer. Soon after, the Court of 
Common Pleas laid down the same doctrine, in CoUis v. Emett, 1 U. Bl. 313. 
This decision was acquiesced in, but Minet v. Gibson was carried up to the 
House of Lords, 1 H. Bl. 569. The opinion of the judges being then taken. 
Eyre, C. B. (p. 618) and Heath, J. (p. 619), were for reversing the judgment 
of the court below, and Lord Thurlow, C, coincided with them (p. 625) ; but 
the other judges thinking otherwise, judgment was affirmed (Pari. Cas., Svo* 
ii., 48). The last case upon the subject reported is Gibson v. Uunter, 2 H. BL 
187, 288, which came before the House of Peers upon a demurrer to evidence, 
and in which it was held that, in an action on a bill of this sort against the 
acceptor, to show that he was aware of the payee being fictitious, evidence 
is admissible of the circumstances under which he had accepted other bills 
payable to fictitious persons." 

39. Chitty on Bills [*157], 181 (13th Am. ed.) ; Edwards on Bills, 128; 1 
Parsons on Notes and Bills, 32; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) ['TO], 173: 
Thompson on Bills, 52; Story on Bills, §§ 200, 56. 

40. See chapter XXIII, on Acceptance ; Anderson v. Dundee State Bank, 66 
Hun, 613, 21 N. Y. Supp. 925, quoting with approval the text: Meridian 
Nat. Bank of Indianapolis v. First Nat. Bank of ShelbyviUe, 7 Ind. App. 322, 
33 N. E. 247, 34 N. E. 608, 52 Am. St. Rep. 450, citing text. 

41. See Collis v. Emett, 1 H. 61. 313. 



§ 139. FICTITIOUS PAPEBS. 161 

seemfl to us, that a bill with a fictitious payee may be treated by 
the innocent holder precisely as if payable to bearer.'*^ 

§ 139. Sights of holder when payee is fictitious — In a case of 
a note payable to a fictitious person, it appears to be well settled 
that any bona fide holder may recover on it against the maker as 
upon a note payable to bearer.*^ It will be no defense against 
such bona fide holder for the maker to set up that he did not know 
the payee to be fictitious. By making it payable to such person 
he avers his existence, and he is estopped as against a holder igno- 
rant of the contrary to assert the fiction.** It has been held that if 
a party takes a note payable to a fictitious person for a debt due 
himself, he may recover on the common counts,** though not, as it 
seems, upon the note itself, as he has participated in the wrong 
hv taking a fictitious paper.*® 

42. See Rogers v. Ware, 2 Nebr. 29. See also the Negotiable Instruments 
Law of New York, f 28, par. 3, showing the adoption of the author's conclu- 
sion relative to this question. 

48. Famsworth ▼. Drake, 11 Ind. 108; Plets v. Johnson, 3 Uill (N. Y.), 115; 
Bronaoii, J., held to be the common law; Stevens v. Strong, 2 Sandf. 139 (by 
X. T. Stat.) ; Kogers v. Ware, 2 Nebr. 29. See also Blodgett v. Jackson, 40 
X. H. 26. Recovery on common counts aUowed. Forbes v. Kspy, 21 Ohio 
(X. 8.), 483; Ort v. Fowler, 31 Kan. 478; Emporia Nat. Bank v. Shotwell, 35 
Kan. 360; Robertson v. Coleman, 141 Mass. 231; Be Assignment of Pendleton 
Hardware Co., 24 Oreg. 330, 33 Pac. 544, quoting from and approving text. In 
New York it is provided by statute that paper made payable to the order 
of a fictitious person and negotiated by the maker has the same validity ** as 
against the maker and all persons having knowledge of the facts, as if payable 
to bearer." 1 Rev. Stat. 768, par. 5. The Court of Appeals construing this 
statute held that such paper cannot be treated as payable to bearer, unless 
it was put in circulation by the maker with knowledge that the name of the 
pavee does not represent a real person. Shipman v. Bank of the State of 
Xew York, 126 N. Y. 318, 27 N. E. 371, 22 Am. St. Rep. 821; Odell v. Clyde, 
.18 App. Div. a33, 57 N. Y. Supp. 126; First Nat. Bank v. American Exch. 
Xat Bank, 49 App. Div. 349, 63 N. Y. Supp. 58. 

44. Kohn v. Watkins, S. C. of Kansas, reported in Cent. L. J., Jan. 27, 
1882, voL 14, p. 76, approving text, and applying the principle to a drawer; 
Une V. Krekle, 22 Iowa, 404. Contra, Armstrong v. National Bank, 46 Ohio 
St. 518. But in New York, by statute, the maker is not bound to an indorsee 
eren. unless he, the maker, knew of the fiction at the time of signing. Maniort 
V. Roberts, 4 E. D. Smith, 84; Fifth Nat. Bank v. Central Nat. Bank, 82 Hun, 
559. 31 N. Y. St. Rep. 541; Chism, Church & Co. v. Bank, 96 Mass. 641, citing 
text; datton v. Attenborough & Son, L. R., App. Cas. 90 (1896) : Clutton & 
Co. V. Attenborough, 2 Q. B. 306 (1895); Qutton & Co. v. Attenborough, 2 
Q.B. 707 (1896). 

45. Foster v. Shattuck, 2 N. H. 447. 4a See ante, | 136. 

Vol. I — 11 



162 IBSEGULAB INSTRUMENTS. §§ 140, 141. 

Where a note has as its payee a fictitious firm, and the holder 
indorses it assuming the firm's name, a bona fide indorsee may 
recover against the maker.*^ But where an impostor procured 
a check to be drawTi to a firm in a distant city, of which he repre- 
sented himself to be a member, such firm being actually in ex- 
istence, and then indorsed the check to a bonu fide holder for value 
in the name of the firm, it was held that the maker was not bound, 
the firm not being a fictitious payee, and though having no in- 
terest in the paper, its genuine indorsement was necessary to pass 
the title thereto.*® 

Where a note is executed in the name of a fictitious person, it 
has been held that the payee who indorses it with knowledge of 
that fact will be held liable as maker, without demand or notice 
of nonpayment.*® 

§ 140. If the biU or note be payable to some person who had no 
interest in it, and was not intended to become a party to it, whether 
such person is or is not known to exist, the payee may be deemed 
fictitious. But if it be payable to some person known at the time 
to exist, and present to the mind of the drawer when he made it, as 
the party to whose order it was to be paid, the genuine indorsement 
of such payee is necessary, in order to a recovery thereon by an 
indorsee, even though he had no interest in it, and the drawer knew 
that fact.*^ 

§141. Adopted names — Parties sometimes adopt and use fic- 
titious names as their own, and when there is a real party in exist- 
ence who uses a fictitious name as descriptive of, and with intent 
to bind himself, it is the same in law as if it were his real name ; 
and he may be sued by the holder, and declared against as having 
contracted by such adopted name.*^* But if it were not a name 

47. Blodgett v. Jackson, 40 N. H. 26. 

48. Rowe V. Putnam, 131 Mass. 2S1. 
48. Bundy v. Jackson, 24 Fed. 629. 

50. Rogers y. Ware, 2 Nebr. 29; Phillips v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 67 Hus, 
378, 22 N. Y. Supp. 254 (affd. in 140 N. Y. 556, 35 N. E. 982) ; Re Assipi- 
ment of Pendleton Hardware Co., 24 Oreg. 330, 33 Pac. 544; PhiUips v. Mer- 
cantile Nat. Bank, 67 Hun, 378, 22 N. Y. Supp. 254 (affd. in 140 N. Y. 566, 
35 N. E. 982, quoting with approval the text). 

51. Ladd v. Rogers, 11 Allen, 209; Fiore v. Ladd & Tilton, 22 Or^. 202. 
29 Pac. 435. In this case held : " Where, in the regular course of business and 
without any circumstances tending to rouse suspicion, a bank receives from 
a stranger, money which he deposits in a name assumed by him, the bank is 



§ 142. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS EXECUTED IN BLANK. 163 

which he adopted and used as his own, the only civil remedy of 
the holder would be a suit in tort for the false representation.'*^ 

SECTION III. 

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS EXECUTED IN BLANK. 

§ 142. In subsequent portions of this work will be found the cita- 
tion and discussion of cases illustrating the rights of holders of 
negotiable instruments intrusted to another with blanks,*^ and of 
holders of such instruments altered after issue ;^ but we deem it 
proper here to state the general principles applicable to them. 
Parties often lend their mercantile* credit to others by signing 
their names to blank papers to be afterward filled as bills of ex- 
change or promissory notes written over their signatures as drawers 
or makers; or by signing their names in the appropriate manner to 
indicate that they design to bind themselves as acceptors or iii- 
dorsers of the instrument which it is contemplated to complete 
npon such blank papers. And it is a settled principle of com- 
mercial law, that when such instruments are afterward completed 
bv the holder of such blanks, to whom they are loaned, such par- 
ties become as absolutely bound as if they had signed them after 
their terms were written out; and further, that the presence of 
their names upon blanks purports an authority granted to the holder 
to fill them for any sum, and with any terms as to time, place, and 
conditions of payment. And that although the party may pre- 
?crihe limits to the holder, a bona fide transferee from him, igno- 

authorized to repay him the money on the return of its certificate of deposit 
issued in the transaction, indorsed by the person ni«kin<; the deposit, al- 
though the indorsement be in the assumed name and the money in fact 
belonged to the person whose name the depositor wronjjffuily assumed, unless 
^ore such repayment something occurs to indicate the true ownership or 
put the bank on inquiry thereabout." The reasoning of the court was: 
''They contracted with him under the name of Savens Fiore, believing that 
to be his true name, issued and delivered to him the certificate of deposit in 
^eh name, thereby intending to make it payable to the person to whom it 
^as delivered; and although they may have been mistaken in the nftme of 
the man, the person with whom they dealt was the person intended by them 
as the payee of the certificate." Anderson v. Dundee JState Bank, 66 Uun, 613, 
21 N. Y. Supp. 925, quoting with approval the text. 

52. Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 345. 

58. Pee chapter XXVI, § 3, vol. 1, § 843 e« seq. 

54 See chapter XLIII, | 6, vol. 2, | 1405 et aeq 



164 IRBEQULAB INSTEUMENTS. § 142. 

rant of such limitation of authority, when he takes an instrument 
which has exceeded it, may recover upon it.*"^ 

In an early case, where the party had indorsed his name on the 
back of five copper-plate checks, blank as to sums, dates, and times 
of payment, and Galley, the holder, filled them up as hLs own 
notes, with different dates, sums, and times of payment, the in- 
dorser was held bound to the plaintiff, who had discounted them, 
and Lord Mansfield said : " The indorsement on a blank note is 
a letter of credit for an indefinite sum. The defendant said: 
' Trust Galley to any amount and I will be his security/ It does 
not lie in his mouth to say the indorsements were not regular." ^ 
And this admirable statement of the law is almost universally 
quoted with approval, and followed as a precedent, applying 
equally to maker, acceptor, and drawer, as to the indorser.*^' The 
United States Supreme Court has said on the same subject: 
" Where a party to a negotiable instnunent intrusts it to the cus- 
tody of another, with blanks not filled up, whether it be for the 
purpose to accommodate the person to whom it was intrusted, or 
to be used for his own benefit, such negotiable instrument carries 
on its face an implied authority to fill up the blanks and perfect the 
instrument ; and as between such party and innocent third parties, 

55. This text is approvingly cited in Frank v. lilienfeld, 33 Gratt. 384. In 
Snyder v. Van Doren, 46 Wis. 602, this doctrine was applied where a note 
was signed by the first maker for accommodation, leaving blanks for words, 
making it a joint or several obligation, and in that form he delivered it to 
the person accommodated. The latter procured other parties to sign it as 
joint makers with the first; and the first maker was held liable to the holder, 
although but for the blanks being left, the note would have been regarded as 
altered and avoided. See also Binney v. Globe Nat. Bank, 6 Law. Rep. Annot 
381 ; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Thomas, 79 Hun, 595, 29 N. Y. Supp. 837 ; Whittle 
& Harrel v. National Bank, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 616. 

56. Russell v. Langstaffe, 2 Doug. 514 (1781). 

57. Post, § 843; Usher v. Dauncey, 4 Campb. 97 (1814) (bill); Bulkley v. 
Butler, 2 B. & G. 425 (bill held good, though sum not filled up till after 
bankruptcy of acceptor) ; Powell v. Duff, 3 Campb. 182; Schultz v. Astley. 29 
Eng. C. L. 414; Mahone v. Central Bank, 17 Ga. Ill; Fullerton v. Sturgiss. 4 
Ohio (N. S.), 529; Bank of Commonwealth v. Curry, 2 Dana, 142; Bank of 
Limestone v. Perrick, 5 T. B. Mon. 25: Jones v. Shelbyville Ins. Co., 1 Mete. 
(Ky.) 58; Michigan Ins. Co. v. Leavenworth, 30 Vt. 11; Androscoggin Bank 
V. Kimball, 10 Cush. 373; Niehol v. Bate, 10 Yerg. 429: Ives v. Farmer*' 
Bank, 2 Allen, 236; Rich v. Starbuck, 51 Ind. 87; Hardy v. Norton, 66 Barb. 
527: Joseph v. National Bank. 17 Kan. 259; Waldron v. Young, 9 Heisk, 777: 
Snyder v. Van Doren, 46 Wis. 602; Cobum v. Webb, 56 Ind. 96; Johnston 
Ilarveater Co. v. McLean, 57 Wis. 268; Hopps v. Savage, 69 Md. 516; Thompson 
on Bills. .37. 



^ 143. NEGOTIABL£ INSTBUMENTS EXECUTED IN BLANK. 165 

the person to whom it was so intrusted must be deemed the agent 
of the party who committed such instrument to his custody — or, 
in other words, it is the act of the principal, and he is bound by 
it." * And again : " But the authority implied from the exist- 
ence of the blanks would not authorize the person intrusted with 
the instrument to vary or alter the material terms of the instru- 
ment by erasing what is written or printed as part of the same, 
nor pervert the meaning and scope of the same by filling the 
blanks with stipulations repugnant to what was plainly and clearly 
expressed in the instrument before it was so delivered." ** 
* * * " And it does not confer authority to make any additions 
to the terms of the note ; and if any such of a material character 
are made by such a party, without the consent of the party from 
whom the paper was received, it will avoid the note even in the 
hands of an innocent holder." ^ It has been held that if the blank 
space be filled with terms foreign to the apparent object of such a 
blank, an innocent holder cannot recover.** 

§ 143. lUnfltratioiis of authority implied The authority im- 
plied by a signature to a blank, and the credit granted, are so ex- 
tensive, that the party so signing will be bound to a bona fide 
transferee in due course, though the holder was only authorized to 
use it for one purpose, and has perverted it to another,® though 
authorized to be filled for a certain amount and a greater is in- 
serted ;^ and though the authority was limited to a time which has 

5& Bank of Pittsburg y. Neal, 22 How. 107; Davidson y. Lanier, 4 Wall. 
457: Angle y. Northwestern, etc., Ins. Co., 92 U. 8. (2 Otto) 330; Bradford 
Xat. Bank v. Taylor, 75 Hun, 297, 27 N". Y. Supp. 96; De Pauw y. Bank of 
Stlem, 126 Ind. 553. 25 X. E. 705, 26 N. E. 151 ; Market & Fulton Nat. Bank 
V. Sargent. 85 Me. 351, 27 Atl. 192, 35 Am. St. Rep. 376. 

59. Angle v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 92 U. S. (2 Otto) 331. See 
al«) Goodman y. Simonds, 20 How. 361 ; Bank of Pittsburg y. Neal, 22 How. 108. 

60. Cobum y. Webb, 66 Ind. 100; Ivory y. Michael, 33 Mo. 400. See Mc- 
Grath V. Clark, 56 N. Y. 36, and yol. 2, § 1406; post, ft 694: Weyerhauser v. 
Dun, 100 N. Y. 150; Meise v. Doscher. 83 Hun, 580, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1072. 

61. McCoy V. Lockwood, 71 Ind. 319. 

62. Putnam y. Sullivan, 4 Mass. 45; Frank v. Lilienfeld, 33 Gratt. 384. In 
this case a wife indorsed, for her husband's accommodation, a note blank as 
to date, time, and place of payment, amount, and name of payee. It wan 
nlled up in excess of authority, and the bona fide holder recovered against 
h^T, and subjected her separate estate. See chapter XXVI, on Rights of Bonn 
y'lde Holder. $ 843 et seq., and chapter XI, for Authority of Agents; First 
Xat. Bank of Decatur y. Johnston, 97 Ala. 665. 

63. London & S. W. Bank v. Wentworth, 42 L. T. B. 188; Diercks v. Rob- 
^ri^, 13 8. C. 338; Market & Pulton Nat. Bank v. Sargent, 86 Me. 351, 27 
Atl. 192. 



166 IRBE6ULA-; INSTRUMENTS. § 143(1. 

expired,^ or was only to be exercised upon a condition which has 
not happened.^ If the date be left blank, any holder has a right 
to insert the true date ; and should he insert an improper date, the 
parties will still be bound to a bona fide holder for value and with- 
out notice of the impropriety,^ but a party having notice could 
not recover, unless he acquired it from one who took it bona fide 
without notice.^ The marginal figures being no part of the instru- 
ment, it has been held that where the holder of a note, in blank, 
filled it up and negotiated it for a larger amount than was indicated 
by the marginal figures, this did not vitiate the note, although he 
also altered the figures.® If the place of pajTuent be left blank, 
the principles above stated apply,® and so if there be left a blank 
for the name of the promisor, so that words may be inserted making 
it joint or several, and additional makers sign and imite in the note, 
it will not be a material alteration unless it was known to the holder 
that authority was exceeded to fill the blanks.™ If a blank be left 
for the rate of interest, it does not imply authority to fill in a rate 
greater than the legal rate, and the party doing this would conunit 
a material alteration.''* 

§ 143a. Effect of acceptance of bill blank as to drawer A bill 

without a drawer is a contradiction of terms, and the acceptance 
of a bill, blank as to the drawer, amounts to nothing so long as it 
so remains, as already seen.''' But if the acceptance of such a paper 
be given, and it be delivered in that form to a creditor, a right to 
insert his name as drawer would be inferred, and also to use the 
paper in negotiation, the transferee inserting his own nanie.^ 

64. Montague v. Perkins, 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 516. 

66. See chapter XXVI, on Rights of Bona Fide Holder, § 7, S 854 cf seq. 
ee. Page V. Morrel, 3 Abb. App. Dec. 433; Redlich v. DoU, 54 N. Y. 238; 

Frank v. Lilienfeld, 33 Gratt. 378; Overton v. Mathews, 35 Ark. 154. 

67. Emmons v. Meeker, 55 Ind. 321, 

68. Schryver v. Hawkes, 22 Ohio St. 308. 

69. Redlich v. Doll, 54 N. Y. 238; Marshall v. Drescher, 68 Ind. 242 {semhle). 

70. Snyder v. Van Doren, 46 Wis. 602. But there is no implied authority 
given to the person to whom the same was delivered to fill in such note the 
words "with interest," when there is no blank left therefor, or to write in 
the blank preceding the words " after date," the words " on demand." See 
Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Thomas, 79 Hun, 595, 29 N. Y. Supp. 837. 

71. Hoopes v. CoUingwood, 10 Colo. 107. 

72. See ante, § 92. 

73. Harvey v. Cane, 34 L. T. R. 64 (1876) ; Ames on Bills and Notes, vol. 1. 
p. 881; In re Duffy, 5 L. R., Ireland, 92; Whittle & Harrel v. National Bank, 
7 Tex. Civ. App. 616. 



§ 144. heqotiabJjE instruments exbguted in blank. 167 

And it might be filled up by the personal representative of the 
holder for value after the latter's death."^* Even where there had 
been given no authority to insert any one's name as drawer, yet 
when the insertion of a name is actually made, the instrument 
would be binding as an acceptance to a bona fide holder in the 
usual course of business.^ There are some cases in which a party 
signing his name on the back of a bill drawn payable to the order 
of another, with a view to guarantee its payment by the acceptor, 
may be held liable as a drawer. Thus, in England, before the bill 
was drawn, the defendant wrote his name on the back of the paper. 
It was afterward filled up payable to the drawer's order, and ac- 
cepted by the drawee. He was held liable as drawer.''® 

§ 144. Effect of ngning a blank paper. — The authority implied 
by one signing a blank paper is so extensive that such paper will 
be valid in the hands of a bona fide holder, whether it be framed 
as a negotiable instrument or otherwise. In Virginia, where a 
paper was signed and indorsed in blank, and intrusted to the maker 
for whose accommodation it was made, it was held that a bona 
fide holder, who had advanced money upon it, and who knew that 
it was made in blank, could recover against such party whether 
it were filled up as a common promissory note or as a negotiable 
note.''^ So in Indiana, where a note was filled up as nonne- 

74. In re Duffy, 5 L. R., Ireland, 92. 

75. Post, §§ 843, 844; Whittle & Barrel v. National Bank, 7 Tex. Civ. 
App. 616. 

70. HathewB ▼. Bloxsome, 33 L. J. R. 209 (1864). This case is questioned 
in Steele ▼. McKinlay, 43 L. T. R. 358 (1880), 5 App. Cas. 754, Lord Watson 
saying of it, " there is room for doubt whether the decision was intended to 
go so far as the reports state. If it was, I cannot avoid the conclusion that 
it is at variance with sound principle." 

77. Orrick v. Colston, 7 Gratt. 189 (1850), Daniel, J., saying: "It is well 
iettled that a blank indorsement on a negotiable instrument, blank as to 
date or amount at the time of the indorsement, if made for the purpose of 
giving a credit to the drawer, is as effectual to bind the indorser for any 
amount with which the instrument may be filled up by the drawer, or an 
innocent holder for value, as if the instrument had been completed at the time 
of the indorsement. In the case of Russell v. Langstaffe, 2 Doug. 514, the 
Court of King's Bench held, in the language of Lord Mansfield, that such 
an indorsement 'is a letter of credit for an indefinite sum,' — that the in- 
dorser in effect said, 'trust the drawer to any amount, and I will be his 
security.' So in Schultz v. Astley, 29 Eng. C. L. 414, which was the case 
of an acceptance written on a paper, before entirely blank, it was held that 
tlie blank acceptance was an acceptance of the bill afterward put upon it : 
and that there is no distinction in principle, when the bill has passed into 



168 ISBEOULAB INSTRUMENTS. § 145. 

gotiable, under express stipulation with the indorsers, for accom- 
modation of the makers, that it should not be made payable at 
bank; but the indorsee had inserted a provision making it pay- 
able '' at the Bank of Indiana, at the Laporte branch," in a blank 
space left on the face of the note, and then transferred it, it was 
held that the holder could recover ; and Kay, J., said : " The surety 
who has not scrupled to trust his principal with the semblance of 
a general authority to make the delivery, must stand the hazard 
he has incurred." ^® So where the paper was drawn in the form 
of a blank bill of exchange, and it was filled up by the parly for 
whose accommodation it was drawn as a negotiable note, the party 
who signed the blank was held liable.'* When indorsement is in 
blank, the holder may write over it anything consistent with its 
character ; but not a waiver of demand and notice.*^ 

§ 145. Payee in blank. — Bills and notes are also often executed 
in full with the exception of the name of the payee, which is left 
blank in order that it may be afterward filled up with the name 
of the actual holder who demands payment, the design of this 

the hands of third persons, between holding the acceptor liable to a given 
amount, when the bill is afterward drawn in the name of the party who 
has obtained the acceptance, and when it is drawn by a stranger, who be- 
comes the drawer at the instance of the party to whom the acceptance is 
given. And in the case of Douglass v. Scott & Fry, decided by this court, 
8 Leigh, 43, where the paper was signed in blank and indorsed in blank, 
and delivered to another to be filled up and used as a negotiable inBtmment 
to raise money on, the decision was founded on the proposition that the 
negotiable note afterward drawn over the signature of the maker, did, to- 
gether with its indorsements, bind all the parties to the same extent as if 
the maker had signed and the indorsers indorsed the paper in its perfect form." 
See Morehead v. Parker sburg Nat. Bank, 5 W. Va. 74. Mr. Conway Robin- 
son, in his Practice (vol. 2, new ed., p. 136), dissents from the view expressed 
in this opinion. It may be observed that he was opposing counsel in the case 
when it was decided. 

78. Spitler v. James, 32 Ind. 203 (1869); Gillespie v. Kelley, 41 Ind. 158; 
Wessell V. Glenn, 108 Pa. St. 105 (1872). See contra, Morehead v. Parkers- 
burg Nat. Bank, 5 W. Ya. 74. In this case the court does not seem to 
have paid sufficient attention to the fact that the space left afforded oppor- 
tunity for the alteration by adding the place of payment, which made the 
note negotiable. See post, §§ 1405, 1409. 

79. Luellen v. Hare, 32 Ind. 211 (1869). This doctrine has been held in 
Indiana not to apply to a nonnegotiable note. Cronkhite v. Nebeker, 81 Ind. 
322. 

80. Andrew^s v. Sinunon, 33 Ark. 771; Hood v. Robbins & Smith, 98 Ala. 
484, 13 So. 574. 



§ 145. NEGOTIABLE INSTBUMENTS EXECUTED IN BLANK. 169 

fonn of paper being to enable the owner to pass it oS to another 
widiout incurring the responsibility of an indorser, and without 
risking a depreciation oi its current value, which might possibly re- 
sult from indorsing it ** without recourse/' ^* The same result 
might be attained by making the instrument payable to the draw- 
er's or maker's order, or to bearer ; but a bill or note with the payee 
blank is to ahnost every legal intent and purpose paya'ble to bearer. 
It passes from hand to hand by delivery.^ Any bona fide holder 
for value may fill it up with his own name and sue upon it.®*^ And 
although thus brought in apparent privity with the maker or 
drawer, he may, by proving that he was not the party to whom it 
was first delivered, exclude defenses valid as against such first 

81. Ifoximmel v. Enders, 18 Oratt. 805; Schooler v. Tilden, 71 Mo. 581; 
Hording y. State, 54 Ind. 359; Armstrong v. Harshman, 61 Ind. 52. 

82. Wookey ▼. Pole, 4 6. & Aid. 6, 6 Eng. C. L. 323. In EUiott ▼. Deason, 

64 Ga. S3, note was made payable " to W. L. P., or ." Held negotiable. 

Steel y. Bathbun, 42 Fed. 390, citing the text; Manhattan Sav. Inst. v. New 
York Nat. Exch. Bank, 42 App. Div. 147, 59 N. Y. Supp. 51. 

83. In Bnimmel v. Enders, 18 Gratt. 895, the case of a note blank originally 
as to the name of the payee, it was said by Joynes, J. : " The question as 
to the effect of such an instrument came before the Court of King's Bench 
m the year 1813, in the case of Crutchley v. Clarence, 2 Maule & S. 90, 
which is the leading case. That was an action against the drawer of a bill 

of exchange payable to the order of (the name of the payee being left 

blank). It was indorsed to the payee by one Vashon, and the plaintiff in- 
'^rted his own name as payee, and the case was distinguished from Russell 
V. Langstaffe, 2 Doug. 514 (Chitty, Jr., 415), because the bill in that case was 
filled up by c»ie of the original parties. But the court overruled the objec- 
tion, and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Lord Ellenborough, 
C. J.: 'As the defendant has chosen to send the bill into the world in this 
form, the world ought not to be deceived by his acts. The defendant, by 
leaving the blank, undertook to be answerable for it when filled up in the 
^hape of a bill.' » • • Though the bill in this case was indorsed to the 
plaintiff, the title to it did not pass by the indorsement because the name 
of the indorser was not in the bill. It passed by the delivery. In the follow- 
ing^ year the same question came before the Court of Common Bench in an 
action against the acceptor of the same bill. Crutchley v. Mann, 5 Taunt. 
529, 1 Eng. C. L. 179. It was objected that the authority given to the person 
to whom the bill was first delivered, to insert his name as payee, was not 
transferable from hand to hand. But the court held that the plaintiff had 
A right to insert his name as payee, and was entitled to recover. Upon the 
authority of these cases, it is laid down in all the treatises that any bona 
fide holder of a bill or note which is blank as to the name of the payee may 
insert his own name, and thus acquire all the rights of the payee." Frank v. 
Lilienfeld. .33 Gratt. 378; Gothrapt v. Williamson, 61 Ind. 590; Rich v. Star- 
I»ck, .51 Ind. 87. 



170 ISBEGUIJLB INSTBUMENTS. § 146. 

party, and enjoy all the rigfa^ of a bona fde holder for value and 
without notice.** 

But the holder must actually fill up the blank with his name 
before he can recover upon the instrument, as until then it does 
not import a contract with him.®* And unless so filled up, a de- 
scription of it as a bill or note in an indictment would not be 
sustained.®® 

§ 146. How far a holder may go in filling up blanks — Not only 
may the holder of a note in which there is left a blank as to the 
name of the payee fill it up with his own name, but where it is 
delivered with such blank to a party, and by him indorsed in blank, 
the holder may fill up the blank in the body of it with the name 
of the indorser, and then complete the indorsement by filling it up 
to himself. He thus perfects the instrument upon its skeleton 
form, and makes it what it was evidently designed to be.*' 

In Massachusetts the following skeleton note — 

" $1,585.90. Brooklyn, September 20, 1S58. 

after date promise to pay to the order of 

Dec. 23, dollars at yaltte reoeired. 

Geo. R. Ives." 

was delivered to Yale as a mere memorandum, and not to be used 
as a note. Yale filled it up as a note for $1,585.90, payable to his 
own order at the Atlantic Bank, New York, and indorsed it to the 
plaintiff, who discounted it for him. The court held all evidence 

84. Brummel v. Enders, 18 Gratt. 905; Frank v. Lilienfeld, 33 Gratt. 378: 
Nelson v. Cowing, 6 Hill, 336; Pindar v. Barlow, 31 Vt. 539; Rich v. Starbuck. 
51 Ind. 87. See also chapter VII, on Consideration, § 175, and cases cited. 

86. Greenhow v. Boyle, 7 Blackf. 56; Seay v. Bank of Tennessee, 3 Sneed, 
568; Thompson v. Rathbun, 22 Pac. 837, citing the text. 

86. In Rex v. Randall, Russ. & Ry. C. C. 195, it was held that a bill blank 
as to the name of the payee did not answer the description of a bill of ex- 
change in an indictment. But however that may be, " the cases cited abund- 
antly establish that a party to such a bill is liable upon it as if it was filled 
up. It has been held, too, that while a bill or note is blank as to the payee, 
the holder cannot sue upon it as bearer, but that he must insert his name a? 
payee. Greenhow v. Boyle, 7 Blackf. 56; Seay v. Bank of Tennessee. 3 Sneed. 
558. But these cases fully recognize the doctrine of the case of Crutchley v. 
Clarence. See ante, §§ 144, 145, and notes. They only hold that the insertion 
of the name of the plaintiff, so that the paper may on its face import a con- 
tract with him, is necessary to enable him to sue upon it." See Bees t. 
Conococheague Bank, 5 Rand. 326. 

87. Elliott V. Chesnut, 30 Md. 562. 



§147. NBOOTIABLE INSTBUMENTS EXECUTED IK BLAKK. 171 

as to any agreement between the original parties inadmisBible, and 
the holder entitled to recover.** 

It is clear however that a holder who knew when he took the 
paper that the authority to fill it up had been departed from can- 
not recover.* 

§147. When holder exceeds authority to flU blanki — If the 

bolder exceed the terms of his authority in filling up the blank, 
he can have no benefit from it, even to the extent of his authority, 
for his wrongful act is an utter nullity as to himself '^ and if the 
party who takes such paper from the holder have notice that he has 
exceeded his authority, he participates in the wrongful act by ne- 
gotiating for it, and cannot recover against the party who signed 
the blank.'* But what charges the'transferee with notice is a mat- 
ter on which the authorities differ. By some authorities it is held 
that if he knew that the paper had been signed as a blank, and 
filled up by force of authority by the holder, he should inquire 
as to the extent of such authority, and if he fails to do so, he takes 
the paper at his peril.** And Vice-Chancellor Stuart said in an 
Engli^ case : ^' If the holder has notice of the imperfection [that 
the signature was made in blank] he can be in no better situation 
than the person who gave it in blank." •* But this qualification of 
Lord Mansfield's doctrine, that the blank signature is " a letter of 
credit for an indefinite sum," does not impress us as an improve- 
ment upon it. The paper, being limitless in its terms, is prima 

88. Ives V. Farmers' Bank, 2 Allen, 236 ; Bnimmel v. Enders, 18 Gratt. 897 ; 
Cox y. Alexander, 30 Oreg. 438, 46 Pac. 794. 
80. Wagner v. Diedrich, 50 Mo. 484; aower r. Wynn, 59 Ga. 246. 

90. Van Buzer v. Howe, 21 N. Y. 631 ; Putnam v. Sullivan, 4 Mass. 46. 

91. Davidson v. Lanier. 4 Wall. 456. The court said : " The delivery of a 
bin of exchange signed and indorsed in blank, only authorizes the receiver to 
fill it up in conformity with the authority given him. If there has been no 
agreement, the authority is general; if there has, it must be pursued. The 
burden of proof that there was an agreement, and that its terms have been 
violated, is, in such a case, upon the defendant; but if he can make the 
proof it will avail him. No person, unless authorized, either directly or by 
juftt inference from the nature of the transaction, can fill up a blank bill 
for his own benefit, nor can such a bill be enforced against the drawer and 
indorser in favor of any one who takes it in bad faith — that is, with knowl- 
edge that it has been filled up without authority or in fraud." Hatch v. 
Searles, 2 Smale ft G. 147 ; Johnson v. Blasdale, 1 Smedes & M. 17 ; Hemphill v. 
Bank of Alabama, 6 Smedes k M. 44. 

M^ Van Duzer v. Howe, 21 N. Y. 631; Byles (Sharswood's ed.) [•182], 308. 
d3. Hatch V. Searles, 2 Smale ft G. 147. 



172 IRREGULAR INSTRUMENTS. § 14^. 

facie limitless as to the authority it confers. The holder is in- 
vested with a general authority as to that paper,^ and the graphic 
phrase of Lord Mansfield describes it to perfection. High au- 
thorities, including Story and Parsons, concur in these views, 
which seem to us clearly the most philosophical.* 

§ 148. Bonds with blanks.- A bond — that is, ^^ a deed whereby 
the obligor promises to pay a sum of money to another on a day 
appointed " ®* — stands upon a footing entirely different from bills 
and notes and other negotiable instruments. It cannot be left 
blank either as to the sum, name of the obligee, or other material 
part, and filled up afterward by an agent, so as to bind the obligor. 
In other words, it must be perfected in every respect before it 
amounts to anything. The reftson of the distinction is, that .au- 
thority to make a deed can only be imparted to an agent by an in- 
strument of equal dignity — that is, by deed. In an early English 
case, a different doctrine was announced by Lord Mansfield,*' and 
it has been followed in some American cases.^ But that decision 
has been overruled in England;®® and in the United States the 
doctrine of the text has been approved.^ It may be stated how- 
ever, as a limitation of this doctrine, that it does not extend so far 
as to apply to that peculiar class of instruments which pass under 
the general title^of " coupon bonds." They are now universally re- 
garded as negotiable, when so framed as to indicate an intention to 
make them so. And being negotiable, are governed, for the .most 
part, by the rules applicable to commercial securities, and not by 
common-law principles.^ Individual bonds, when made negotiable 
by statute, would doubtless stand on the same footing. 

94. Chitty on Bills [•29], 38. 

95. Orrick v. Colston, 7 Gratt. 189; Huntington v. Branch Bank, 3 Ala. 186: 
Snyder v. Van Doren, 46 Wis. 602 ; Story on Bills, § 222 ; 1 Parsons on Notes 
and Bills, 100. See also Edwards, 252-253. 

96. 2 Bl. Com. 346; Preston v. Hull, 23 Gratt. 602, Staples, J. 

97. Texira v. Evans, cited in Master v. Miller, 4 T. R. 320; 2 Robinson's 
Practice (new ed.), 13. 

98. Woolley v. Constant, 4 Johns. 60; Ex parte Decker. 6 Cow. 60; Bx 
parte Kerwin, 8 Cow. 118; Duncan v. Hodges, 4 McCord, 239; Gonslin v. 
Commander, etc., 6 Rich. 497. 

99. Hibblewhite v. McMowrie, 6 M. A W. 200; Enthoren v. Hoyle, 9 Eng. 
L. & Eq. 434; Sheppard's Touchstone, 68. 

1. Preston v. Hull, 23 Gratt. 602; Penn v. Hamlet, 27 Gratt. 337; Daven- 
port V. Sleight, 2 Dev. & Bat. (Law) 381; Burden v. Sutherland. 70 N. C. 
528; Bland v. O'Hagan, 64 N. C. 471. See ^88 68, 856. 

2. White V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 21 How. 575; Preston v. Hull, 23 Gratt, 
613: Lyon Co. v. Savings Bank, 40 C. C. A. 391, 100 Fed. 337. 



OHAPTEE YL 

MEMORANDA UPON BItXS AND NOTES, AND COLLATERAL 

AGREEMENTS. 



SECTION I. 

MEMOBAin)A UPOX BILLS AND NOTES. 

§ 148. As to memoranda upon bills and notes, questions have 
frequently arisen as to whether or not they were to be regarded as 
incorporated into the instruments themselves. In an English ease, 
where the words " with lawful interest " were written in the cor- 
ner of a note after its execution, and without the maker's consent, 
Lord Campbell, C. J., said : " This forms part of the contract. 
It would clearly have been so if it had been written in the body of 
the note, and we think a memorandum of this kind written in the 
comer of the note is equally part of the contract, because the 
contract must be collected from the four corners of the document, 
and no part of what appears there is to be excluded." ^ And this 
rule has been applied in numerous English and American cases. 
Snch memoranda, if made by agreement of the parties before 
signing, will bind all the parties to the instrument, and all who 
have, or are legally presumed to have, notice thereof, and may be 
pleaded by either plaintiff or defendant.* How far, and under 
what circumstances, a bona fide transferee of the paper is affected 
by the addition, erasure, or obliteration of such memoranda is 
elsewhere considered.* 



1. Warrington v. Early, 2 El. A Bl. 763, 75 Eng. C. L. See also Benedict 
T. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 402; Dewey v. Reed, 40 Barb. 21; Wait v. Pomeroy, 20 
Mich. 427; Bowie v. Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286; White v. Gushing, 88 
Me. 342, 34 Ail. 164, 51 Am. St. Rep. 402. 

2. Gift ▼. Hall, 1 Humphr. 480; Hatfield v. Griffith, 1 Lea, 301; Perry 
^*. Bigelow, 128 Mass. 129; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 539; Byles 
on Kllg (Sharswood's ed.) [♦94], 193. See ante, §§ 59, 60; Goldman v. Blum, 
58 Tex. 636, citing the text; Solomon Solar Salt Co. V. Barber, 58 Kan. 419, 
49 Pac. 524, citing text. 

8. See chapter XUII, on Alterations. S 1407. 

[173] 



174 MEMORANDA UPON BILLS AND NOTES. § 150. 

§ 150. nixLstratioiui of memoraada affeoting negotiability. — The 

principle above stated has been applied, in the United States, 
and construed as part of the instrument, where the memorandum 
was written at the bottom of the note, " one-half payable in twelve 
months, the balance in twenty-four months ; " * where on the lower 
left-hand margin was written " Brandon money," ^ and " Ints. at 
124 per cent. ; " ^ where on the margin was written, " payable in 
fulled cloth one year from the month of October next ; " ^ where 
on the back of the note was written a condition making it payable 
in five years, in a certain contingency;® where the word '^ facili- 
tates," signifying certain bank notes, was written on a note under 
the names of the subscribing witnesses f where the words "[foreign 
bills]" were written in brackets under the note, its negotiability 
being thereby destroyed ;^^ where, imder the maker's signature, was 
written, " If the machine should not be delivered, this note not to 
be paid ; " ** where there was indorsed on a note payable on its 
face, on demand, a condition that it was not to be payable until 
the happening of a certain event, ^^ or that the maker was not to be 
compelled to pay before a certain time ; ^' where there was written 
under the maker's signature a memorandum that it was not to be 
collected until a certain event transpired ;** where the words " given 
as collateral security with agreement " were indorsed on the margin 
of a note.**^ Where the words " bank book of the depositor must 
accompany this order," were written under an order in a savings 
bank.*^ The simple memorandum that the note is issued as col- 
lateral security, it would seem, impairs its n^otiability.^" So, 

4. Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228; Bowie v. Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286. 

6. Gift V. HaU, 1 Humphr. 480. 6. Hatfield v. Griffith, 1 Lea, 300. 

7. Fletcher v. Blodgett, 16 Vt. 26. 8. Henry v. Colman, 5 Vt. 403. 

9. Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. 322. 

10. Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. 254. 

11. Wait v. Pomeroy, 20 Mich. 425. See also The State ▼. Stratton, 27 
Iowa, 424. 

18. Effinger v. Richards, 35 Miss. 540. 

18. Franklin Sav. Inst. y. Reed, 125 Mass. 365. 

14. Johnson v. Heagan, 23 Me. 329. 

15. Costello V. Crowell, 127 Mass. 293, Lord, J.: ''Any language put upon 
any portion of the face or back of a promissory note, which has relation to 
the subject-matter of the note by the maker of it before delivery, is a part 
of the contract." American Nat. Bank t. Sprague, 14 R. I. 410. See anief 
f 60. 

16. White V. Cashing, 88 Me. 342, 34 Atl. 164, 51 Am. St. Rep. 402. 

17. Askell V. Lambert, 16 Gray, 592: American Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 14 
R. I. 410; Gibson v. Hawkins, 69 Ga. 354; ante, $ 60. 



§ 151. MEMORANDA UPON BILLS AND NOTES. 175 

also, a memorandmn that the note will he renewed at maturity.^® 
But the mere recital that it is given to secure the payment of a cer- 
tain debt, or other recital of the consideration, will net make the 
obligation conditional.*® 

§ 161. Memoranda on back. — It seems that the purport of the 
instrument is not only to be collected from " the four comers," but 
from " the eight comers," a memorandum on the back, affecting 
its operation, being regarded the same as if written on its face.^" 
This view has been applied where a note payable absolutely on 
its face bore an indorsement that payment was not to be compelled, 
but to be received when convenient to the maker to make pay- 
ment ; ^ where a note absolute on its face bore on the back, " This 
note is given on the condition that if any dispute shall arise be- 
tween Lady Wray and D. Hartley respecting the sale of the within- 
mentioned fir, then the note to be void ;" ^ where there was in- 
dorsed on the back of the note that it was " to be taken for security 
of all such balances as J. M. may happen to owe to T. L. & Co., 
not extending farther than the within-named sum of £200, but this 
note to be in force for six months, and no money to be called for 
sooner in any case ;" ^ where, on the back of a note was indorsed, 
'^the within note is given for securing certain floating ad- 

18. atizen8* Nat. Bank v. Piollet, 126 Pa. St. 194. 

19. Ganin v. Esterly Mach. Co., 118 Ind. 373; ante, § 60a. 

20. Farmers' Bank y. Ewing, 78 Ky. 266; Morris v. Cain, 39 La. Ann., 
dting the text; ante, $ 60; Van Zandt v. Hopkins, 151 111. 248, 37 N. E. 
845, citing text; The Kalamazoo Nat. Bank v. Clark, 52 Mo. App. 593. 

21. Barnard v. Cushing, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 231. 

22. Hartley v. l^^lkinson, 4 Campb. 127 (1814). 

23. Leeds v, Lancashire, 2 C^mpb. 205 (1809), Lord Gllenborough said: " In 
the hands of a liona fide holder who received it as a promissory note, it might 
possibly be considered as such, but the present plaintiffs (the payees) can 
only treat it as a guaranty for Marriott to the amount of £200. As to them 
the indorsement must be incorporated with the body of the note." But when 
the cage came before the King's Bench, as reported in 5 Maule & S. 25 (1815). 
the above obiter dictum as to a bona fide holder was not repeated, and Lord 
EUenborough, C. .J., said: " How can it be said that this note is a negotiable 
instrument for the pa3rment of money absolutely, when it is apparent that 
the party taking it must inquire into an extrinsic fact in order to ascertain 
if it be payable? By the indorsement the party takes nothing but a contin- 
gent benefit, dependent upon the happening or not of a particular dispute 
about the property." Bayley, J., said: " This note cannot be said to be pay- 
able, at all events." And Dampier, J., said : " The argument is, that a promis- 
sory note to pay, ' unless a dispute shall arise between A. A> B./ imports an 
UDconditional promise to pay." 



176 MEMORANDA UPON BILLS AND NOTES. §§ 152, 153. 

vances ;" ^ so where it was indorsed on the back of a note that pay- 
ment was not to be expected until a mill was sold ;^ so where con- 
dition was written on the back of the note providing for deductions 
on certain contingencies,^ or that the note was to be paid *' in 
wheat at ninety-five cents a bushel." ^ So where the words, "' the 
indorsers waive presentment, protest, and notice of dishonor," were 
written on the back of the note.^ 

§ 162. The New York cases do not seem to be uniform and con- 
sistent on this subject. In one case it was held that a memorandum 
on the back of the note that it was to be delivered as consideration 
for a judgment to S. & O., " was no part of the note, and the effect 
of it was only to show the consideration and operate as a notice to 
any person who might purchase the note." ^ And in another, 
that an indorsement on the back of a note of a condition that it 
was to be delivered to the payees as security for a certain accept- 
ance, and was to be void in a certain event, did not affect its ne- 
gotiability, and was not a part of it.*^ But it has been there held 
that a memorandum on the margin of a note specifying no place 
of payment, running " payable at the Bank of America," entered 
into its terms, and, being made without the maker's consent, ma- 
terially altered and avoided it.'^ The like view prevailed as to a 
memorandum added on the face of a note, " interest to be paid 
semi-annually," ^ and as to a memorandum under the makers 
signature, " the above note to be paid from the profits of machines 
when sold." ^ And in the last quoted case it was doubted whether 
the earlier cases could be regarded " as the deliberate adjudications 
of the Supreme Court of this State." ** 

§ 163. Memorandnm merely to identify instrument. — If the 

memorandum be intended merely to identify and earmark the 

24. Cholmeley v. Darley, 14 M. & W. 344. 

25. Blake v. Coleman, 22 Vlls. 416. 

26. Henry v. Colman, 5 Vt. 402. 

27. Polo. Man. Co. v. Parr, 8 Nebr. 379. 

28. Farmers' Bank v. Ewing, 78 Ky. 264. 

29. Sanders v. Bacon, 8 Johns. 485 (isil). See Edwards on KIls, 147, 281. 

30. Tappan v. Ely, 15 Wend. 363 (1836). To same effect, see Bowie v. 
Hume, 13 App. (D. C.) 286. 

31. Wood worth v. Bank of America, 19 Johns. 391 (1821), overraling same 
case in 18 Johns. 316 (1820). See § 1383. 

32. Dewey v. Reed, 40 Barb. 17 (1863), 

33. Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396 (1872). 

34. Benedict ▼. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 405, Allen, J. 



§154. ICKMOBANDA UPON BIIX8 AND NOTB8. 17T 

iitftninieat, it will not affect its operation ; ^ and it haa been re- 
garded of this character where it was indorsed upon a note by the 
payee that he desired his executors not to call in the money until 
three years after his deatk^ 

§ 1S4. Parol evidence as to memoranda It is competent for 

either party to show by parol testimony the time when, the person 
by whom, and the circtmistances under which a memorandum upon 
a bin or note was made. If made — and it will be presumed that 
it was made — contemporaneously with the execution of the instru- 
ment, and as a constituent part thereof,^ it will be given full effect 
as above stated ; if made after its execution and with the consent 
of all parties, it will modify and control its operation ; and if made 

85. Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 402; BriU v. Crick, 1 M. A W. 232; Fitch 
T. Jones, 5 El. & Bl. 238, 85 Eng. C. L.; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) 
[•«4], 193. 

36. Stone ▼. Metcall, 4 Campb. 217. 

37. Fletcher ▼. Blod|[^tt, 16 Vt. 26. In this ease, memorandum on margin 
of note was payable in merchantable fuUed cloth one month from the month 
of October next. The note was for $41.50, payable one day after date, with 
interest annually. Held, the memorandum was part of the note, and was to be 
presnmed to have been made at time of signing. Henry v. Colman, 5 Vt. 402. 
Condition written on back of note created as part of it. Jones v. F^les, 4 
Maes. 253. In this case the words [foreign bills 1 were written on the margin 
of the note. Parsons, C. J., said: *'It is a reasonable conclusion that these 
words must aU be taken to be the words of the maker of the note, written 
before it was delivered to the promisee." Tuckerman v. Hartwell, 3 Greenl. 
147. In Harvey t. EflQnger, 35 Miss. 552, a written agreement was appended 
to or indorsed on the note that it was not to be payable until the happening 
of a certain event. Smith, C. J., said: "According to the well-settled rule on 
the subject, the note and the agreement constituted one instrument." See 
also Leeds v. Liancashire, 5 Maule & 8. 25; ante, S 151, note. Professor Par- 
sons does not seem to concur with the text. He says in vol. 2, Notes and 
Bills, p. 544: "It has been held that words written on the back of a note 
are no part of the body thereof, prima faxiie, but are presumed to be done 
after the note is completed." This view is taken in Buy v. Sprader, 50 Miss. 
330, where Simrall, J., says: "If such memoranda are at the foot or on the 
back of the note or other instrument when executed, they constitute a part 
of the contract. But being disconnected from the body of the instrument to 
which the maker's name is signed, it forms no original part of it, until shown 
to have been upon it when executed." And when the written memorandum 
on the back of the instrument constitutes a part only of the agreement, it 
is competent to prove by parol the portion of the agreement that was not 
reduced to writing. See Vickers v. Batter shall, 84 Hun, 496, 32 N. Y. Supp. 
314; Bacon v. Dodge, 62 Vt. 460, 20 Atl. 197; Edelen v. Worth, 69 Mo. App. 
124, citing text; Maddox v. Wyman, 92 Cal. 674, 28 Pac. 838; Van Zandt v. 
Hopkms, 151 HI. 248, 37 N. E. 845, ciUng text; ante, § 131. 

Vol. 1 — 12 



178 MEMORANDA UPON BILLS AND NOTES- §§ 155, 156. 

by a stranger without the consent of any party, it will be a spolia- 
tion, and be disregarded; while, if made by the holder without 
consent of the parties, it will vitiate and avoid it, being a material 
alteration.*® And when any of these questions of fact are raised, 
they are to be put in issue and tried by a jury.** When the memo- 
raiidum is a part of the instrument, parol testimony is inadmissible 
to alter or vary its terms, as it is part of a written contract f^ and 
if it be repugnant and contradictory, such evidence is inadmissible, 
as it should be rejected as surplusage.*^ 

§ 166. Although an agreement be written upon the same paper 
that the note is written on, and yet if it be evident that it was not 
intended to incorporate the terms of the agreement in the instru- 
ment itself, the transferability and negotiability of the instrument 
will not be affected by it. Thus, where the payee of a note, at the 
time of taking it, wrote underneath it an agreement to take the 
above note in certain labor if done in six months, there being no 
evidence that the promisor had ever performed or offered to pe^ 
form the labor, and the six months having expired, it was held 
that the two instruments were not to be construed together as parts 
of the same contract, and that an indorsee might recover on it in 
his own name.** 

SECTION II. 

COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS. 

§ 166. Contemporaneoni agreements — When there is a contem- 
poraneous written contract affecting the terms of the bill or note, 
it is to be construed together with the bill or note, in so far as 
each may be given effect, and there is no repugnancy between 
them.^ Thus, where a note is payable in five years, with interest 

38. Ibid.; Dewey v. Reed, 40 Barb. 16; BriU v. Crick, 1 M. A W^. 231; Morris 
V. Cain, 39 La. Ann. 731. 

39. Makepeace v. Harvard College, 10 Pick. 303. 

40. Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228. 

41. Way V. Batchelder, 129 Mass. 361. So if it be too indefinite to admit of 
construction. Krouskop v. Shoutz, 51 Wis. 204. 

42. Odiorne v. Sargent, 6 N. H. 401. See ante, fS 61, 62; Ewing v. Claric. 
76 Mo. 545; American Gas Co. v. Wood, 90 Me. 516, 38 Atl. 548. 

43. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Atkinson, 17 Mo. App. 494, citing the text: 
Heisler, Admr., etc. v. Lyon, 4 Colo. App. 10, 34 Pac. 841. See also ciUtiona 
in notes 6 and 10 to § 813; Montgomery v. Page, 29 Greg. 320, 44 Pac. 689: 
Jones V. Rhea, 22 N. C. 721. In the last case held, that if part only of the con- 
tract was reduced to writing the omitted parts may be proved by parol. Fol* 



§ 157. COLLATSBAL AOBEEMENT8. 179 

at 10 per cesaL, and at the time of its execution a mortgage is given 
to secure its payment, in which it is stipulated that interest shall 
be payable annually, the mortgage as between the parties will 
control the payment of interest.** So, if there be a contemporane- 
ous written contract recognizing the note, and promising to pay 
an additional sum on a contingency, for the same consideration, 
it is a good bargain, and merges all prior stipulations.*'^ The time 
of payment, as fixed in the note, may be controlled by a separate 
written agreement made at the time of the execution of the note, 
which will bind subsequent parties with notice of the agreement.** 

§ 157. Subsequent agreements — After a bill or note has been 
executed and delivered, it is a subject of contract like any other 
property or chose in action ;*^ and evidence therefore will be ad- 
mitted to show a subsequent bargain upon a good consideration to 
extend the time of payment,*® or an agreement that payment might 

lowing the principle stated in the text, it has been decided in North Carolina 
that a verbal agreement between two parties owning a note, payable to them 
jointly, that upon the death of either, without issue, it shall belong to the sur- 
Tivor, is valid. Taylor v. Smith, 116 N. C. 531, 21 S. £. 202; Hinsdale v. 
Jerman, 116 N. C. 162, 20 S. E. 294; Farr v. Nichols, 132 N. Y. 327, 30 N. E. 
834: Central Trust Co. v. New York Equipment Co., 74 Hun, 405, 26 N. Y. 
Supp. 850; Bratton v. Lowry, 39 S. C. 383, 17 S. E. 832; Continental Ins. 
Co. V. Dorman, 125 Ind. 189, 25 N. E. 213; Schmueckle v. Waters, 126 Ind. 265, 
25 N. £. 281; Montgomery v. Hunt, 99 Ga. 499, 27 S. K. 701; Montgomery v. 
Hunt 93 6a. 438, 21 S. E. 59; McDonald v. Huestis, 1 Ind. App. 275, 27 
N. E. 509; Commercial Bank of Selma v. Crenshaw, 103 Ala. 497, 15 So. Hi, 
citing the text; Fisher v. Briscoe, 10 Mont. 124, 25 Pac. 30; Seicroe v. First 
Nat. Bank, 50 Nebr. 612, 70 N. W. 220; Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Nebr. 553, 76 
X. W. 1059; Gregory v. McCormick, 120 Mo. 656, 25 IS. W. 565; Hawes y. 
Mnlholland, 78 Mo. App. 493; Lawson v. Spencer, 81 Mo. App. 169; Brooke 
r. Stnithers, 110 Mich. 562, 68 N. W. 272, citing text; Jennings v. Todd, 118 
Mo. 296, 24 S. W. 148, 40 Am. St. Rep. 366. 

44. Muzzy v. Knight, 8 Kan. 456. See also Meyer v. Graeber, 19 Kan. 166; 
Dobbins v. Parker, 46 Iowa, 358; po8t, § 835; Clark v. Jones, 93 Tenn. 639, 
42 Am. 8t. Rep. 931, 27 S. W. 1009; Evans v. Baker, 5 Kan. App. 68; Phelps 
V. Mayers, 126 Cal. 549, 58 Pac. 1048. Contra, Keys v. Lardner, 55 Kan. 331, 
40 Pac, 644. 

45. Fiflke v. Williams, 4 App. Div. 488, 38 N. Y. Supp. 899; Stutts v. 
Strayer, 60 Ohio St. 384, 54 N. E. 368, 71 Am. St. Rep. 723; Cuthbert v. 
Bowie, 10 Ala. 163. 

40L Supporting the principle announced in the text, see Leach v. Hill, 106 
Iowa, 171, 76 N. W. 667; Mahaska County Bank v. Christ, 82 Iowa, 56, 47 
N. W. 886; Jacobs v. MitcheU, 46 Ohio St. 605. 

47. Heaton v. Myers, 4 Colo. 63. 

48. Solomons v. Jones, 3 Brev. 54; Commercial Bank v. Hart, 10 Wash. 
303, 38 Pac. 1114; Fisher v. Stevens, 143 Mo. 181, 44 S. W. 769, text cited. 



180 MEMORANDA UPON BILLS AND NOTES. §§ 158, 159. 

be made to a third person,^ or that the contract for whid& the paper 
was given has been rescinded, and thus the consideration failed.^ 

§ 158. Discharge by subsequent agreement. — Where there is an 
agreement subsequent to the execution of the instrument, upon a 
valid consideration, to do or receive something else for and instead 
of the note, and such agreement has been actually carried out, it 
operates as a discharge of the instrument, and there can be no 
recovery upon it.*^^ But if the agreement be still executory, it has 
been held that it must be enforced in another suit Thus, a de- 
fense to a note payable in one year, that an oral collateral agree- 
ment provided that payment diould not be demanded until the 
expiration of five years, is no bar to a suit brought before the lapse 
of five years.*** So, where the payee of a note, who had sold a 
certain article, warranted it, and promised, if bad, to furnish a 
duplicate before the note should be paid, it was held no defense to 
the note." Peculiar statutes may, in some States, change these 
common-law principles. 

§ 169. Agreements to renew. — An agreement to renew a bill or 
note would be binding,*^ but unless it otherwise expressed the num- 
ber of times of renewal, it would be construed as an agreement to 
renew once only." If contemporaneous with the execution of the 
instrument, such agreement would not be binding unless in writ- 
ing, for the reason that it would contradict the terms of a written 
C(^itract, and parol evidence for that purpose is inadmissible. But 
if after the note is made, such agreement, though oral, would 

40. Low V. TreadweU, 12 Me. 441. 

50. Allen ▼. Furbish, 4 Gray, 504; Newton v. Jackson, 23 Ala. 885; Rogen 
▼. Bedell, 97 Tenn. 240, 36 S. W. 1096, cited in note 10 to f 813. 

51. CroBBman v. Fuller, 17 Pick. 171. As illustrative of the general doe- 
trine of the text, see Steven v. Lord, 84 Hun, 353, 32 N. T. Supp. 309. 

52. Dow v. Tuttle, 4 Mass. 414; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 530, 531. 
Contra, Grafton Bank v. Woodward, 5 N. H. 99; Erwin t. Saunders, 1 Cow. 
249. 

53. Kelso V. Frye, 4 Bibb, 493. It has also been held in New York, that 
where a promissory note is given for a proper consideration, and an oral 
agreement that it shall not be collected, or that its payment shall not be 
enforced, is entirely nugatory, and an action may be maintained upon the 
note when it. becomes due, notwithstanding such promise. ISee Mead v. Na- 
tional Bank of Pawling, 89 Hun, 102, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1054. 

54. Innes v. Munro, 1 Exch. 473. But an offer to renew, not accepting 
before suit filed, would not constitute agreement to renew. Albertype Co. 
V. Kent & Stanley Co., 19 R. I. 561. 

55. Innes v. Munro, 1 Exch. 473. 



§ 159. COLLATEBAI. AGB£EMENTS. 181 

be binding if for a consideration.^ In an action on a note payable 
in ninety days from date^ but containing on its face a provision that 
if the maker pay one-half the note, and the interest on the other 
half, in advance, for ninety days, the payment of that half should 
be extended for that further length of time — it should be de- 
scribed according to its terms in a declaration, and a description of 
it as payable in ninety days fnmi date would be a variance.^'' But 
i£ the agreement for extension or renewal were on a separate paper, 
it should not be noticed in the declaration.'^ In England it has 
been held that when there has been a valid subsequent agreement 
for renewal, the defendant must show that he applied for a re- 
newal, or the plaintiff will prevail.^ Any agreement between the 
payee and the maker of a note not written on its face could not 
affect a bona fide indorsee for value, and without notice ; and the 
payee, after indorsing it, would be estopped to assert a restriction 
upon its negotiability.*^ 

56. Grafton Bank v. Woodward, 5 N. H. 99; Fleming v. Gilbert, 3 Johns. 
S20; Hoare t. Graham, 3 Campb. 57; Gibbon v. Scott, 2 Stark. 286. Com- 
pare Ellis T. Randle, 24 Tex. av. App. 475; Wolz v. Parker, 134 Mo. 458, 35 
S. W. 1149; Commercial Bank v. Wood, 52 Mo. App. 214; American Nat. 
Bank r. Love, 62 Mo. App. 378; Henehan v. Hast, 127 Cal. 656; New London 
Credit Syndicate v. Neale, 2 Q. B. 487 (1898). 

57. Woodstock Bank y. Downer, 27 Vt. 482; Barnard v. dishing, 4 Mete. 
(Mass.) 230. 

5a SmaHey v. Bristol, 1 Mich. 153. 

59. Gibbon ▼. Scott, 2 Stark. 286. 

60. Hodges ▼. Shuler, 24 Barb. 68; Mater v. The American Nat. Bank of 
TknveTy 8 Colo. App. 325^ 46 Pac. 221; Higgins v. ODonnell, 68 Hun, 100, 22 
^. T. Supp. 610. And in Iowa it has been held that sureties cannot show, by 
parol, that the payee of a note told them when they signed that he would 
not re<iuire them to pay the note. Altman ▼. Anton, 91 Iowa, 612, 60 N. W. 
191. 



OHAPTEE YIL 

CONSIDERATION OP NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. 

§ 160. By consideration is meant a benefit or gain of some kind 
to the party making the promise, or a loss or injury of some kind 
to the party to whom it is made. By the common law a promise 
made without consideration was invalid, and in order to enforce 
any contract it was necessary to aver and prove a consideration. 

The most ancient exception to this rule was made in reference 
to promises under seal, the solemn act of the party in attaching 
a seal to the evidence of his contract being regarded as importinii: 
a consideration and estopping him from denying it. The necessi-' 
ties of trade soon produced another relaxation of the rule ; and by 
the usage and custom of merchants, bills of exchange and promis- 
sory notes came to be regarded as prima facie evidences of con- 
sideration; and peculiar qualities were accorded to them which 
were possessed by no other securities for debt. These qualities, 
so far as they relate to the consideration of such instruments, we 
propose now to discuss. 

SECTION I. 

WHAT INSTEUMENTS IMPORT A CONSIBEEATION. 

§ 161. There is no doubt that if the instrument sued on be a 
bill of exchange — although it lacks the words " payable to order," 
or " bearer," which are essential to its negotiability — it is un- 
necessary to aver or prove a consideration, for it imports a con- 
sideration in itself by the very fact that it is a bill of exchange.^ 
But if it is shorn of its character as a bill of exchange by being 
made payable out of a particular fund, or upon a condition, or in 
a different medium than money, it does not, per se, import a con- 
sideration. And consideration must be averred and proved ;* un- 

1. Averett's Admr. v. Booker, 16 Gratt. 169 (1859) ; Josceline v. LaBsere. 10 
Mod. 294, 317 (1714); Haydock v. Lynch, 2 Ld. Raym. 1563; LouisviUe R. 
Co. V. Caldwell, 98 Ind, 251, citing the text; Cowan v. Uallack, 9 Colo. 576, 
citing the text; Dalrymple v. VS^yker, 60 Ohio St. 108, 63 N. E. 713; Cox v. 
Sloan, 158 Mo. 411, citing text. 

2. Averett's Admr. v. Booker, supra; Atkinson v. Manks, 1 Cow. 691; De 
Forest v. Frary, 6 Cow. 161; Belderback y. Burlingame, 27 IlL 338, order 

[182] 



§162. WHAT INSTBUMENTS IMPOST A CONSIDERATION. 183 

less it be stated on its face that it was given for " value received," 
or some equivalent, or there are expressions in it inconsistent with 
any other theory than that it was upon a consideration, in which 
cases it would be prima facie evidence of consideration.* If its 
terms are just as consistent with the existence of consideration as 
they are with the theory of a total want thereof, for instance, a 
draft addressed to " the trustee of N. and A.," directing the pay- 
ment of a sum " out of any money in his hands belonging to me," — 
it would not afford such a legal presumption of consideration as 
to dispense with proof of it.* If an order be so drawn as to imply 
that the drawee has funds in his hands to meet it, acceptance of it 
is an admission of the funds in hand and their sufficiency.^ 

§ 162. At common law an action of debt cannot be sustained 
upon a promissory note, as of itself importing a debt; but the 
plaintiff must declare upon the contract as in assumpsit, and must 
both aver and prove a valuable consideration. And the note, 
though it could not be declared on, might be given in evidence in 
support of the contract stated, as, for instance, .on accoimt for 
money lent.® One effect of the English statute of Anne, which has 
been quoted,"^ was, that an action of debt might be maintained on a 
promissory note without alleging a consideration, and, of conse- 

* - T 

payable "in lumber;" Josceline v. Lassere, 10 Mod. 294, 317 (1714); Hay- 
dock V. Lynch, 2 Ld. Raym. 1563; 1 Robinson's Practice (new ed.), 143. 

3. Averett's Admr. v. Booker, 15 Gratt. 169; Frank v. Irpena, 27 Minn. 43; 
1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 226, 228, note. See Joliff e v. Higgins, 6 Munf . 3 ; 
Booth V. Dexter Fire Engine Co., 118 Ala. 369, 24 So. 405. 

4. Averett's Admr. v. Booker, 15 Gratt. 170, Lee, J., saying: "Taking all 
the terms of the paper together they are at least consistent with the 
theory of the absence of all considerations, as they are with that of any value 
received. The terms of the order would admit equally well of several different 
constructions. The drawer might have known that he had just such a sum 
in the hands of the drawee, and intended merely to give authority to the 
latter to deliver the same to the payee for him ; or without knowing whether 
the trustee had received funds for him or not, might have merely given the 
order, if he had, to authorize the payee to receive them for him as agent." 

5. Vamer v. Nobleborough, 2 Greenl. 123; Maber v. Massias, 2 Bl. Rep. 
1072. 

6. Peasley v. Boatwright, 2 Leigh, 198 (1830) ; Jackson v. Jackson, 10 Leigh, 
452 (1839); Bourne v. Ward, 61 Me. 191; Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 7; 
Bircleback v. Wilkins, 22 Pa. St. 26; aarke v. Martin, 2 Ld. Raym. 757; 
Story V. Atkins, 2 Ld. Raym. 1430; Trier v. Bridgman, 2 East, 359. 

7. Ante, § 5. 



184 OONBIDEBATION OF N1SQOTIABL£ INSTBUMENTS. § 163. 

quence^ without proving any.^ And such is the e£Fect of all stat- 
utes which make promissory notes negotiable,' or which authorize 
actions of debt upon them though nonnegotiable. But such note» 
as are not negotiable by statute, or upon which no action of debt 
is authorized by statute, remain as at common law ; and not im- 
porting a consideration, it must be alleged and proved.*^ 

§ 163. These general principles are affected more or less by stat- 
utes in the United States, and it has been said by a learned author 
that the only conclusion to which he is led by the authorities re- 
specting nonnegotiable notes is that in some of the States the 
*' presumption of consideration would be denied, and in others, 
perhaps admitted." ** It is quite certain however that the trans- 
feree of a nonnegotiable instrument can stand on no better footing 
respecting the original parties than his transferrer, and that the 
consideration may be inquired into, though " value received " is 
expressed. ^^ Whenever a note is expressed to be " for value re- 
ceived,*' or states a consideration, it is prima facie evidence of 

8. Peasley v. Boatwright, 2 Leigh, 198; Sprague v. Sprague, 80 Hun, 285, 
30 N. Y. Supp. 162; Wood v. Flanery, 89 Mo. App. 632, citing text. 

9. Glasscock v. Glasscock, 66 Mo. 627; Carnwright v. Gray, 127 N. T. 92, 
27 N. E. 835, 24 Am. St. Rep. 424, citing text. 

10. Peasley v. Boatwright, supra; Averett's Admr. v. Booker, 15 Gratt. 165; 
Courtney v. Doyle, 10 Allen, 123. In this case the note ran, " I promise to pay 
A. B. three hundred dollars with interest from date (signed) C. D.'' Held, 
that consideration must be averred and proved. 

11. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 227. In Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. 
675, a note running, " Due A. B. $325 payable on demand," was held to import 
consideration. In the case of Mortimer v. Chambers, 63 Hun, 335, 17 N. Y. 
Supp. 874, held, that a nonnegotiable note imports a consideration, as against 
a devisee and its production makes a prima facie case against him, the court 
saying: ''We have examined the statute and the authorities cited but find 
nothing in them which sustained the view contended for. And in Camright ▼. 
Gray, 67 Hun, 518, 11 N. Y. Supp. 278, it was held that a nonnegotiable 
note imported a consideration as against the executors of the deceased maker 
as well as the maker himself. If the question were a new one, we should 
be inclined to adopt the view expressed by Learned, J., in the very able and 
exhaustive dissenting opinion which he wrote in that case, and held that a 
nonnegotiable note does not import a consideration against anybody. But 
that case holds to the contrary, and there is other authority to the same 
effect." 

12. Chamberlain v. Gorham, 20 Johns. 144; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills. 
228; Edwards on Bills, 217. See Gardner v. Walsh, 95 Mich. 606, 56 N. W. 
355; Rnk v. Chambers, 95 Mich. 608, 65 N. W. 375. 



§164 WHAT TNSTRVUEHfTS IBCPORT A CONSIDKBATION. 185 

conrideration,^ though it may not be negotiable, and whether it 
be payable in money or specific articles.^* The plaintiff may rely 
upon the strength of this presumption, but if, anticipating an at- 
tack upon the consideration, he should fail to establish it affirma- 
tively, he will be no longer aided by the statement which the in- 
strument contains. ^'^ The transferee of a nonnegotiable note must 
aver and prove consideration for the transfer. *• 

§ 164. Weight of evidence. — While a bill or negotiable note mi- 
ports in itself a consideration, yet when evidence has been intro- 
duced to rebut the presumption which it raises, the burden is upon 
the plaintiff to satisfy the jury upon all the evidence, a:nd by the 
preponderance of evidence that there was a consideration ; and the 
mere production of the instrument does not shift upon the defend- 
ant the burden of proving that there was no consideration.*^ The 
production of the note, as has been said, is a prima facie evidence 
of a consideration, sufficient, if not rebutted, to maintain the plain- 
tiff's case. But to hold that such an admission in the note of a 
consideration therefor (as the words "value received") changes 

13. Redding v. Redding, 69 Yt. 503, 38 Atl. 230. 

14. Walrad ▼. Petrie, 4 Wend. 576; Bourne v. Ward, 51 Me. 191; Edwards 
on Bilb, 210; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 226; Noyes v. Smith, 2 Xew Eng. 
Rep. 7%; Frank v. Irgens, 27 Minn. 43. Competent to show other and addi- 
tlontl consideration than that named in the instrument. Hill t. Whidden, 158 
Maas. 267, 33 N. E. 526. 

15. Bniyn v. Russell, 62 Hun, 17. 

16. Barrick v. Austin, 21 Barb. 241. 

17. Black River Savings Bank v. Edwards, 10 Gray, 387; Delano v. Bartlet, 
Cufih. 364; SmaU v. Qewley, 62 Me. 165; Bumham v. Allen, 1 Gray, 501; 
Crovingshield v. Crowingshield, 2 Gray, 529; Slate v. Flye, 26 Me. 312; Seurch 
▼. Miller, 9 Nebr. 30; Campbell v. McCormack, 90 N. C. 492; Flint v. Phipps, 
16 Oreg. 448, citing the text; Foote v. Valentine, 48 Hun, 475; Bogie 
T. Nolan, 96 Mo. 85; McCaUum v. Driggs, 35 Fla. 277, 17 So. 407. Because of 
statutory provision, court held that " When there is a proper plea denying 
the consideration of the note, could not take judgment upon the note alone, 
but must prove the consideration upon which it was given." See also Kenny 
V. Walker, 29 Oreg. 41, 44 Pac. 501, citing and approving the text; Durland 
r. Durland, 153 N. Y. 67, 47 N. E. 42; Weaver v. Cosby, 109 Ga. 310. Held, that 
''The possession of a note, reciting a valuable consideration, and a mortgage 
under seal purporting to secure such note raises a presumption that the 
same were founded upon such consideration; and heirs or legatees seeking 
to defeat the collection of such note, and an indorsement of such mortgage, 
OB the ground that they were without consideration, carry the burden of prov- 
ing that such is a fact." Edisto Phosphate Co. v. Sandford et ah, 112 Ala. 
493, 20 So. 613; Smith v. Kinney, 32 Nebr. 162, 49 N. W. 341. 



186 CONSIDEBATION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTBUMENT8. § 165. 

■ 

the burden of proof, and compels the defendant to assume it, would 
be to hold that such an admission when made orally, and when not 
contained in the instrument, would have the same effect*® And 
again : " As the burden is on the plaintiff to prove a good con- 
sideration (for the note), if the whole evidence offered on both 
sides leaves it in doubt whether there was a good consideration or 
not the plaintiff fails of making out his case, and the defendant 
will be entitled to a verdict." *® But if the defendant all^e a fail- 
ure of the consideration, the burden will be upon him to prove it.*^ 

§ 166. Proaf of consideration when bill or note is in hands of 
third parties. — When the bill or note has passed into die hands of 
a third party, we have already seen that the defendant, if he be 
not the immediate indorser of the indorsee, has a double burden im- 
posed upon him. He must show in such cases not only the want 
or failure of the original consideration, but he must go farther and 
show want or failure of the consideration between the plaintiff 
and his immediate indorser. It is important to observe, however, 
that the rules of evidence conform themselves, in some respects, 
to suit the circumstances under which the parties are presumed 
to be placed ; and there are two leading principles which are well 
settled. 

The first is, that proof of a total want of consideration, as that 
the bill or note was executed for acconmiodation, or was intended 
as a gift, or was given for a balance erroneously supposed to be 
due, will not shift it upon the plaintiff to show that he acquired 
it upon a sufficient consideration,^ and subsequent failure of .con- 

18. Commonwealth v. McKie, 1 Bennett & Heard's Leading Criminal Ca^es, 
note 16, Am. Rep. 412; SmaU v. Clewley, 62 Me. 155; Bruyg v. Russell, 60 Hun, 
281, 14 N. Y. Supp. 691, quoting with approval the text. 

19. Burnham v. Allen, 1 Gray, 501; Small v. Clewley, 62 Me. 155; Whitney 
V. Clary, 145 Mass. 15»; Perley v. Perley, 144 Mass. 107; Manistee Nat. Bank 
V. Seymour, 64 Mich. 74. 

20. McCormick Machine Co. v. Jacobson, 77 Mich. 584; Kearney v. White- 
head, 34 La. Ann. 530; posty § 165; Violet v. Rose, 39 Nebr. 660, 58 N. W. 216: 
Sprague v. Sprague, 80 Hun, 285, 30 N. Y. Supp. 162. And where defendant 
pleads illegality of consideration, the burden is likewise upon him to prove 
it. See Fisher v. Fisher, 8 Ind. App. 665, 36 N. E. 296; SoUenberger v. Stevens, 
46 Kan. 386, 26 Pac. 690; Crosby v. Ritchey, 47 Nebr. 924, 66 N. W. 1005: 
Kampman v. McCormick, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 462. 

21. See chapter XXIV, on Bona Fide Holder, %% 111, 810, sees, ii and viL 
This rule was first laid down by Parke, J., in Heath v. Sansom, 2 B. ft Ad. 
291, dissenting from the opinion of the court; but it is now well settled in 



§ 166. WHAT INSTBUMEITTS IMPOBT A CON8IDE&ATION. 187 

sideration stands on the same footing.^ Respecting aocommoda- 
tion bills, it was said by the Court of Exchequer, Lord Abinger 
delivering the opinion : ^ " If a man comes into court without any 
suspicion of fraud, but only as the holder of an accommodation 
bill, it may fairly be presumed that he is a holder for value. The 
proof of its being an accommodation bill is no evidence of the want 
of consideration in the holder. If the defendant says, I lent my 
name to the drawer for the purpose of his raising money upon the 
bill, the probability is that money was obtained upon the bill. 
Unless, therefore, the bill be connected with some fraud, and a 
i^uspicion of a fraud be raised from its being shown that some- 
thing has been done with it of an illegal nature — as that it has 
been clandestinely taken away, or has been lost or stolen, in which 
case the holder must show that he gave value for it — the oniis 
probandi is cast upon the defendant." 

§ 166. Second. — But if the defendant show that there was fraud 
or illegality in the origin of the bill or note, a new coloring is 
imparted to the transaction. The plaintiff, if he has become in- 
nocently the holder of the paper, is not permitted to suffer ; but as 
the knowledge of the manner in which it came into his hands must 
rest in his bosom, and the means of showing it must be much easier 
to him than to the defendant, he is required to give proof that he 
became possessed of it for a sufficient consideration.^ 

If he is innocent, the burden must generally be a light one ; and 
if guilty, it is but a proper shield to one who would be, but for its 
protection, his victim. 

England as well as in the United States. Whitaker v. Edmunds, 1 Moody & R. 
366: Mills v. Barker, 1 M. & W. 425; Percival v. Frampton, 2 Cromp., M. 
ft R. 180; EUicott v. Martin, 6 Md. 509; Ross v. Bedell, 5 Duer, 465; Harger 
V. Worrall, 60 N. Y. 370; Ewing v. Clark, 76 Mo. 545; School District v. 
^heidley, 138 Mo. 672, 40 S. W. 656, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576; Murphy v. Gumaer, 
12 Colo. App. 480, 55 Pac. 951, citing and approving text. 
28. Wilson v. Lazier, 11 Oratt. 477; Knight v. Pugh, 4 Watts & S. 445. 

23. MUls V. Barber, 1 M. & W. 425. 

24. See {1$ 810, 819; Crampton v. Perkins, 65 Md. 24; Second Nat. Bank 
V. Brady, 96 Ind. 508, citing the text; Mace v. Kennedy, 68 Mich. 389; 
MeXamara v. Gaigett, 68 Mich. 454; Sutton v. Beckwith, 68 Mich. 300. Th^ 
three last-named cases are known in Michigan as the " Bohemian Oat Cases.'* 
Jones V. Hanna, 22 Pac. 884, citing the text; Vathir v. Zane, 3 Gratt. 
246. In Harvey v. Towers, 6 Exch. 656, Pollock, C. B.. said: " It is now well 
settled that if a bill be founded in illegality or fraud, or has been the subject 
of felony or fraud, upon that being proved, the holder is compelled to show 
that he gave value for it." Smith v. Braine, 16 Q. B. 244, overruling Brown v. 



188 CONSIDESATION OF NBOOTIABLE INSTSXHCENTS. §§ 167'169. 

§ 167. It was formerly considered necessary, in order to enable 
the defendant to put the plaintiff on proof of consideration, that 
defendant should have given the plaintiff notice to prove considera- 
tion; * but it is well settled now that no such notice is necessary, 
and it is seldom given.^ It was, also, formerly held that ^ere the 
consideration given by the plaintiff was disputed, and a notice to 
that effect had been given, the plaintiff must go into his vrhole 
case in the first instance, and could not reserve proof of considera- 
tion as an answer to the defendant.^ But now the plaintiff is only 
required to give affirmative proof of consideration after the de- 
fendant has given evidence tending to rebut the prima facte case 
which the production of the instrument makes out.* 

SECTION IL 

BY WHAT LAWS THE LEGAUTY OF CONSIDEBATION IS DETEBMI^^ED 

COKFEDEHATE OBLIGATIOI7S. 

§ 168. The laws in force at the time a note is given determine 
its legality and effect; and where a law prohibiting the sale of 
spirituous liquors has been repealed, it does not thereby validate 
a note given in violation of the statute when it was in force; and 
a renewal of the note will be tainted with the original illegality.® 

§ 169. The legality of the consideration of a contract is to be 
determined by the laws of the State or country where the contract 

Phillpot, 2 Moody & R. 285; Bailey v. Bidwell, 13 M. A W. 73; Sperry v. 
Spaulding, 46 Cal. 544; Campbell v. Patten, 113 N. C. 481, 18 S. E. 687, dting 
and approving text; Cunningham v. Scott, 90 Hun, 410, 35 N. Y. Supp. 881. 
In this connection, see authorities cited in notes to section 791. Commercial 
Bank v. Burgwyn, 108 N. C. 62, 12 S. E. 952, 23 Am. St. Rep. 49, citing text; 
Hazard v. Spencer, 17 R. I. 561, 23 Atl. 729, citing text; Knowlton v. Schultz, 
6 N. Dak. 417, 71 N. W. 650; Rossiter v. Loeber, 18 Mont. 372, 46 Pac. 560, 
quoting text. 

25. Paterson v. Hardacre, 4 Taunt. Ill; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.) 
[•115, 116], 221, note d. 

26. Mann v. Lent, 1 M. A W. 240, 10 B. & C. 877 (21 Eng. C. L.) ; Bailey v. 
BidweU, 13 Mees. k W. 76. 

27. Delaney v. Mitchell, 1 Stark. 439 (2 Eng. C. L.). 

28. Byles (Sharswood's ed.) [116], 221, note d; Rossiter v. Loeber, 18 Mont. 
372, 46 Pac. 660, quoting text. 

29. Holden v. Cosgrove, 12 Gray, 216. See §S 871, 970. But if the note 
given was in consideration of a transaction growing out of the liquor traffic 
at a time when said traffic was legal, a subsequent enactment by the legislature 
declaring said traffic to be illegal will not render illegal the consideration 
Bupporting said note. Phillips v. Giflford, 104 Iowa, 458, 73 N. W. 1033. 



§170. BY \7HAT IjLWS CONSIDBBATION DETERMINED. 189 

is made, and not by those of the State or oountry where the suit is 
brott^t The rules of every nation from comity admit that the 
la^re of erery other nation in force within its own limits ought to 
have the same force everywhere, so far as they do not prejudice 
the rights of other governments or their citizens.'^ The rule is 
foimded not merely on the convenience, but on the necessity of 
nations; for otherwise it would be impracticable for them to carry 
on an extensive intercourse or commerce with each other,^^ or 
even for social order to exist. 

§ 170. Confederate traniaotions. — These principles nave been 
applied by the courts of the United States, since the close of the 
war against the Confederate States, to instruments executed dur- 
ing the war for the loan of Confederate States treasury notes, or 
which were payable in that medium — it having been the only 
currency in general circulation within the Confederate lines ; and 
also to those executed in payment of hires or purchase money of* 
slaves after slavery had been abolished. 

The United States Supreme Court has held unanimously that a 
promissory note payable in Confederate States treasury notes, 
made between parties within the lines of the Confederate States 
during the war, was not executed upon an illegal consideration, un- 
less it was executed with the intent to aid the Confederate cause ; " 
and the courts of some of the reconstructed Southern States and of 



30. See chapter XXVII, on Conflict of Laws, % BQ6 et seq,; Thorington v. 
Smith, 8 WaU. 11. Chief Justice Chase after speaking of the supremacy of 
the Confederate Government in the seceded States, says: "It must follow as 
a necessaiy consequence from this actual supremacy of the insurgent govern- 
Boit, as a belligerent within the territory where it circulated, and from the 
unity of civil obedience on the part of aU who remained in it, that this currency 
oiDst be considered in courts of law in the same light as if it had been issued by 
a foreign government temporarily occupying a part of the territory of the 
United States. Contracts stipulating for payments in this currency cannot be 
1^ for that reason only, as made in aid of the foreign invasion in the one 
case, or of domestic insurrection in the other. They have no necessary rela- 
Uons to the government, whether invading or insurgent. They are transac- 
tions in the ordinary coarse of civil society, and, though they may indirectly 
and remotely serve the ends of the unlawful government, are without blame, 
except when they have been entered into with actual intent to further invasion 
or insmrectlon. We cannot doubt that such contracts should be enforced in 
^ courts of the United States, after the restoration of peace, to the extent 
of their just obligation." Approved in Cook v. LiUo, 103 U. S. (13 Otto) 793. 

31. Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 648. See § 866. 
39L Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 WaU. 666. 



190 CONSIDBRATION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRITMENTS. §§ 171, 172. 

the Other States have adopted similar views.^ Confederate cur- 
rency having been the only medium of exchange in the Confederate 
lines for the better part of the war, any other view would seem 
peculiarly rigorous and cruel, and utterly opposed to that spirit 
of comity and humanity which should ameliorate as far as possible 
the disadvantages and hardships of conflicts between nations. But 
partisan judges have not been lacking in the conquered States, and 
their extreme and violent notions have found expression in deci- 
sions which will remain as an enduring stain upon the records of 
the American judiciary." 

§ 171. Bonds issued by the convention of a secession State to 
raise revenues to carry on war against the United States have been 
held by the United States Supreme Court to be upon an illegal 
consideration.**^ 

§ 172. Promissory notes for slaves. — In respect to promissory 
notes given for slaves, before President Lincoln's emancipation 
proclamation was issued, the Supreme Court of the United States 
has set the question of their validity at rest. It has been decided 
by that tribunal that a note dated March 26, 1861, and given for a 
slave, could be recovered upon, notwithstanding that slavery was 
abolished on the 1st of January, 1862, and the contract of sale 
contained the warranty, " the said negro to be a slave for life," * 
and also notwithstanding the Thirteenth Amendment to the Con- 
stitution, made in 1865, by which it is ordained that "neither 
slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States 
nor in any place subject to their jurisdiction." 

38. Rodes v. PatiUo, 5 Bush, 271; Rivers v. Moss, 6 Bush, 600; Dealing 
V. Rucker, 18 Gratt. 426; Boulware v. Newton, 18 Gratt. 708; Lohman t. 
Crouch, 19 Gratt. 331; MagiH v. Manson, 20 Gratt. 527; Green v. Siaer, 40 
Miss. 350; Murrell v. Jones, 40 Miss. 565. 

34. Note for loan of Confederate States treasury notes void: Lawson v. 
MiUer, 44 Ala. 616; Calfee v. Burgess, 3 W. Va. 274; Prigeon v. Smith, 31 Tex. 
171; Reavis v. Blackshear, 30 Tex. 753. Contracts solvable in Confederate 
money held void. Blossat v. Sullivan, 21 La. Ann. 565; Latham v. Clark. 23 
Ark. 574. And this has been held to apply, although the paper, on its face, 
was payable simply in dollars. Donley v. Tindall, 32 Tex. 43. 

35. Hanauer v. Woodruflf, 15 Wall. 439. 

36. Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 WaU. 665; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 648. In 
Fit zpat rick v. Heame, 44 Ala. 171, it was held that a warranty on the sale of 
slaves *' that the title of said slaves was warranted for the life of said negro 
slaves," was not broken by the subsequent emancipation of the slaves. To 
same effect. Hand v. Armstrong, 34 Ga. 232; Wilkinson v. Cook, 44 Miss. 867; 
McNealy v. Gregory, 13 Fla. 417. 



§§ 173, 174. CONSIDEBATION OPEN TO INQUIRY. 191 

In the State tribunals of the Southern States^ where this ques- 
tion has been of much consequence, conflicting views have been 
taken, but many of the cases concur in judgment with th^ Supreme 
Court of the United States," and in other States of the Union, both 
before and since the war, the principles of these decisions have 
been asserted.*® 

§ 173. A recovery upon instruments executed for slaves, or for 
Confederate money, has been sought to be prevented by articles in 
the new Constitutions of some of the States, denying jurisdiction 
to the courts to enforce them ; or in some such language declaring 
that they shall be deemed void. But such declarations, whether of 
a State Constitution or of a legislative enactment, evidently violate 
the provision of the national Constitution prohibiting the passage 
of any law impairing the obligation of a contract. The United 
States Supreme Court has so held,^ and the decision is obviously 
just ; but some of the Southern tribimals have held otherwise.''^ 

In some of the States it has been held that notes for slaves sold 
after Lincoln's emancipation proclamation were as valid as those 
for slaves sold before,*^ and according to the principles of the text, 
which the authorities amply sustain, there can be substantially no 
difference in the cases, the Confederate Government being in power 
and protecting slavery within its lines as a legal institution. But 
the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case above quoted, 
especially withheld any opinion as to cases arising after emanci- 
pation. 

SECTION III. 

BETWEEX WHAT PABTIES THE CONSIDEHATION IS OPEN TO INQUIRY. 

§174. Who are parties privy in negotiable initmments. — The 
same rule which admits inquiry into the consideration of negotiable 
paper between the original payor and payee extends to admit such 

37. McElvain v. Mudd, 44 Ala. 48; Thompson v. Warren, 5 Coldw. 644; 
Dowdy V. McClellan, 52 Ga. 408; Calhoun v. Calhoun, 2 S. C. 283. Contra, 
Laprice v. Bowman, 20 La. Ann. 234; Lytle v. Wheeler, 21 La. Ann. 192. 

3a. Roundtree v. Baker, 63 111. 241, in which case it was held that an obliga- 
tion for the purchase of a slave in Kentucky, when slavery was legal, might be 
^ned upon in lUinois, and the subsequent abolition of slavery did not affect 
the note. 

39. White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 WaU. 548; McElvain v. 
Mudd, 44 Ala. 48; McNealy v. Gregory, 13 Fla. 417. 

40. Graham r. Maguire, 39 Ga. 531 ; Green v. Clark, 21 La. Ann. 667; Lawson 
▼. Miller. 44 Ala. 616; Barrow v. Pike, 21 La. Ann. 14. 

41. McElvain v. Mudd, 44 Ala. 48; Hall v. Keese, 31 Tex. 504. 



192 COI^SIBERATION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 174a. 

inquiry in any suit between parties between whom there is a 
^Ti^ Thati to say, tet^eTthe iimnediate pities to «iy can- 
tract evidenced by the drawing, accepting, mating, or indorsing a 
bill or note, it may be diown that there was no consideration (as^ 
that it was for accommodation);^ or that the oonjBideration has 
failed, or a set-off may be pleaded; but as between other parties 
remote to each other, none of these defenses are admissible. It 
becomes important then to determine who are to be regarded as 
the immediate parties, or parties between whom there is a privity, 
to a negotiable instrument, and who are remote. Among the for- 
mer may be classed: (1) The drawer and acceptor of a bill;** 
or (2) The drawer and payee ** of a bill as a general rule; (3) The 
maker and payee of a note;**^ and (4) The indorser and immediate 
indorsee of a bill or note.'** 

§ 174a. Who are remote parties in negotiable imtmments. — But 

the want of consideration, or the failure thereof, cannot be pleaded 
in a suit brought: (1) By an indorsee against the maker of a 
note;^^ (2) By an indorsee against a prior, but not his immediate, 

42. Murphy y. Keyes, 89 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 18; Bank of British North America 
T. ElUs, 6 Sawy. 98; WUboh v. ISlsworth, 25 Nebr. 246; Remington v. Dental 
Mfg. Co., 101 Wis. 307, 77 N. W. 178; Higgins v. Ridgway, 163 N. Y. 130, 47 
N. E. 32; Hawkins et ol. t. Collier, 101 Ga. 145. And accordingly it has been 
held that as between the maker and the payee parol evidence is adwiiwuible to 
show that the consideration is different from that recited in the note. Se« 
Burke v. Napier, 106 6a. 327; Smith v. Kinney, 32 Nebr. 162, 49 N. W. 341; 
Fall V. Glover, 34 Nebr. 522, 62 N. W. 168; Fellers v. Penrod, 67 Nebr. 463, 77 
N. W. 1086; Branch v. Howard, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 271, 23 8. W. 478; Sti^ylton 
V. Taegue, 29 C. C. A. 229, 85 Fed. 407. 

43. Thomas v. Thomas, 7 Wis. 476, where it was held that acceptors could 
show as against drawers that they accepted for too much. Spuigin v. MePhee- 
ters, 42 Ind. 627; Trego v. Lowery, 8 Nebr. 238. 

44. McCuUoch v. Hoffman, 10 Hun, 133; Spurgin v. McPheeters, 42 Ind. 527. 

45. Puget de Bras v. Forbes, 1 Esp. 117; Jeffries v. Austin, 2 Stra. 674; 
Kennedy v. Goodman, 14 Nebr. 685; Flaum v. Wallace (N. C), 9 8. £. 571; 
Voice V. Bosenberry, 12 Nebr. 448, a case where the alleged ctmsideration 
moved, not from the payee, but from a third party, creditor of the maker, 
who caused the note to be executed to the payee. 

49. Easton v. Pratchett, 1 Cromp., M. & R. 798, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 642; Holi- 
day V. Atkinson, 6 B. & C. 601; Abbott v. Hendricks, 1 M. & G. 791; Klein 
V. Keyes, 17 Mo. 326; Bamett v. Offerman, 7 Watts, 130; Clement v. Reppard, 
15 Pa. St. Ill; Spurgin v. McPheeters, 42 Ind. 627; Bank of the Ohio Valley r. 
Lockwood, 13 W. Va. 392; Piatt v. Snipes, 43 Ark. 23. 

47. Price V. Keen, 40 N. J. L. 332; post, § 814; Etheridge v. Gallagher. 55 
Miss. 464; Bumes v. Scott, 117 U. S. 682; Chemical light Co. v. Howard, 



J 174a. CONSIDERATION OPEN TO INQUIRY. 193 

indorser;^ (3) By the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill,'*® nor 
by the payee against the acceptor of a bill, as a general mle.^ 
They are regarded as remote parties to each other, and between 
such parties two distinct considerations must be inquired into in 
order to perfect a defense against the holder: (1) The considera- 
tim which the defendant received for his liability; and (2) That 
which the plaintiff gave for his title." And if any intermediate 
holder gave value for the instrument, that intervening considera- 
tion will sustain the plaintiff's title. ^* 

14S Mass. 359; Cooke v. Pearce, 23 S. C. 240; Hawkins v. Neal, 60 Mias. 256; 
Coffing Y. Hardy, 86 Ind. 372; Bearden y. Moses, 7 Lea, 459; Potter et al. ▼. 
Sheets, 5 Ind. App. 506, 32 N. E. 811; Herman v. Gunter, 83 Tex. 66, 18 S. W. 
428, 29 AoL St. Rep. 632, text cited; Banister v. Kenton, 46 Mo. App. 464; 
Grand River Cottage v. Robertson, 72 Mo. App. 7. 

48. Etheridge v. Gallagher, 55 Miss. 464; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 176. 

40. Flower v. Sadler, 10 Q. B. Div. 572, 37 Eng. Rep. 453, Cotton, L. J., say- 
ing: ''The defense in this ease is that the bills were indorsed (by the drawer) 
upon an illegal consideration. • • • j am of opinion that, in strict law, the 
defendant cannot raise this point, for he is an acceptor, and in order to escape 
liability, he must show that the bills of exchange were indorsed to the plaintiff 
in fraud of himself." 

50. Laflin & R. Powder Co. v. Sinsheimer, 48 Md. 411, Robinson, J.: "The 
payee or holder gives value to the drawer, and if he is ignorant of the equities 
between the drawer and acceptor, he is in the position of a hona fide indorsee.' 
Hoffman & Co. v. Bank of Milwaukee, 12 Wall. 181; Flournoy v. First Nat. 
Bank, 79 Ga. 814; Law v. Brinker, 6 Colo. 566; Vanstrum v. Liljengren, 37 
Minn. 191; Arpin v. Owens, 140 Mass. 144. In this pase a consignor who 
bad been in the habit of drawing bills of exchange on his consignee, with 
bills of lading attached to the drafts drawn, drew bills on him with forged 
bilU of lading attached to the drafts, and had the drafts, with the forged bills 
of lading so attached, discoimted in the ordinary course of business by a bank 
ignorant of the fraud, and the consignee, not knowing of the forgery, paid the 
drafts. It was held that there was no recourse by the consignee against the 
bank. See the opinion of the court, p. 190. In Marsh v. Low, 55 Ind. 271, 
breach of warranty on sale of personal property by the drawee to drawer was 
held no defense to acceptor. The rule does not apply to nonnegotiable paper. 
Hunt V. Williams, 10 Atl. 645. An exception to the rule is found in those 
«s»e3 where the acceptance is qualified or conditional, as, e. g., " Subject to 
contract." Haseltine v. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 162. 

51. Hoffman & Co. v. Bank of Milwaukee, 12 Wall. 181 ; Goetz v. Bank of 
Kansas aty, 119 U. S. 556; Craig v. Sibbett, 15 Pa. St. 240; United States v. 
Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet. 393; Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Robinson v. Rey- 
nold*, 2 Q. B. 196 (42 Eng. C. L.) ; Thiedemann v. Goldsmith, 1 De Gex, F. & 
J. 4; Hunter v. Wilson, 19 L. J. Exch. 8, 4 Exch. 489; Spurgin v. McPheeters, 
42 Ind. 527. 

52. Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.), 236; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 
1^; Hunter v. Wilson, 4 Exch. 489; Boyd v. McCann, 10 Md. 118; Howell v. 

Vol. 1 — 13 



194 CONSIDERATION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. §§ 175, 176. 

§ 176. Ecal relations of parties — Who are the immediate par- 
ties to a bill or note, however, does not always appear on its face. 
The name of the payee is often left blank, or there is an indorse- 
ment in blank upon the instrument, gnd in such cases when the 
blank is filled up with the holder's name, he would appear t^ be the 
original payee or indorsee.*^® In such cases the holder may show 
that his ostensible is not his real relation to the paper; and the 
want or failure of consideration cannot be pleaded against him if 
he show that it has passed through intermediate hands, and that he 
is not the immediate promisee of the party attempting the de- 
fense." 

And so the holder of a note who is the payee may show that the 
transaction originally was in the form of a note made by the maker 
for the accommodation of one who indorsed it to the holder ; and 
that it was renewed by the original maker, who substituted the 
holder as payee. The rights of the parties having been fixed bv 
the original note, the new one would be upon suflScient considera- 
tion as between the payee and the holder.*"^ 

If the note were made to the payee for his accommodation, and 
indorsed by him to a holder who parts with nothing on the faith 
of its transfer, and had notice of its accommodation character, ujwn 
these facts appearing, the holder could not recover.** And an 
accommodation maker is entitled to the benefit of any defense 
which the payee has against his indorsee." 

§ 176. So, also, it may be that the drawer is the primary debtor, 
and bound to the acceptor, although as to third parties the acceptor 

Crane, 12 La. Ann. 126; Watson v. Flanagan, 14 Tex. 354; Roscoe on Bills, 111: 
Kyd on Bills, 277; Story on Bills, § 188; Johnson on Bills, 80. See chapter 
XXIV, on Rights of Bona Fide Holder or Purchaser, § 803 et seq. Farher t. 
National Forge & Iron Co., 140 Ind. 54, 39 N. E. 239, citing the text. 

53. Brummel v. Enders, 18 Gratt. 873; Hoffman & Co. v. Bank of Milwaukee, 
12 Wall. 193. 

54. Ibid.; Cagle v. Lane, 49 Ark. 467, citing the text; Munroe v. Bordier. S 
C. B. 862; Arbouin v. Anderson, 1 Q. B. 498; Glasscock v. Rand, 14 Mo. 550: 
Horn V. Fuller, 6 N. H. 511; ante, § 145, 81&; Bank v. Layne, 101 Tenn. 45. 46 
S. W. 762; Bank v. Jefferson, 92 Tenn. 537, 22 S. W. 211, 36 Am. St. Rep. 100: 
Montgomery v. Page, 29 Oreg. 320, 44 Pac. 689; Lockhart v. Ballard, 113 N. C. 
292, 18 S. E. 34; Reynolds v. Roth, 61 Ark. 317, 33 S. W. 106. 

55. Mathias v. Kirsch, 87 Me. 526, 33 Atl. 19. 

56. Powers v. French, 1 Hun, 582; Schultz v. Noble, 77 Cal, 79; Hood v. 
Robbins k Smith, 98 Ala. 484, 13 So. 74. 

57. Schwartzkopf v. Hill (Pa.), 3 Cent. 913. 



§176. CONSIDERATION OPEN TO INQUIRY. 195 

would be the principal. As, for instance, where the acceptance 
has been upon letters of credit,*^^ or for the drawer's accommoda- 
tion.* So, if A., for a good consideration moving from B. to him, 
should procure C. to make his note in favor of B., it would seem 
that it would be no sufficient answer in an action by B. against C. 
that the latter received no consideration from A.,^ or that it had 
failed.^ But if it were shown that there was no consideration 
between A. and C. the maker, or that such consideration had failed, 
it would then be necessary for the payee B. to show a considera- 
tion moving from him to A.*^ 

And if the consideration between the party requesting the exe- 
cution of the note and the maker were illegal, the note would not 

58. Turner v. Browden, 5 Bush, 216. 

59. Turner v. Browden, 5 Bush, 216. See also Stark v. Alford, 29 Tex. 260: 
Trego V. Lowery, 8 Nebr. 238. 

80. Ibid.; Railroad v. Chamberlain, 44 N. H. 497; Lea v. Cassen, 61 Ala. 
312; Teatman v. Mattison, 59 Ala. 382. 

61. South Boston Iron Co. v. Brown, 63 Me. 139, Barrows, J.i "Where, at 
the request of the party with whom he deals, one makes his promissory note, 
which is to be a partial payment, for a piece of work to be done for him, pay- 
able to a third party, who is a creditor of the party with whom he contracts 
for the work, and it is credited by the payor to such party, in good faith, the 
maker cannot set up the defense of failure of consideration as between him- 
self and the party with whom he deals in defense of a suit upon such note in 
the name of the payee." Brown v. Weldon, 27 Mo. App. 259, citing the text. 

62l Aldrich v. Stockwell, 9 Allen, 45. The defendant offered to show that 
the note was for a water-wheel sold by Thompson to him with warranty, which 
had failed, the wheel being worthless, and had been made payable to plaintiff 
at Thompson's request. The court below ruled that these facts constituted no 
defense, but the Supreme Court held othen^-ise, and Gray, J., said : " If such 
were the facts, the defendant was entitled to treat the sale as a nullity ; and 
the proof of entire failure of consideration would have rebutted the presump- 
tion of consideration arising from the admission of the making of the note, 
and would have established a complete defense as between the original parties 
to the note. One consideration of the note having been proved, there could 
be no presumption, in the absence of evidence, that there was any other, and 
the defendant was not, therefore, obliged to prove that there was no other 
consideration for the note. If there was any other consideration, it was for 
the plaintiff to show it. As the case stood, the plaintiff might have held the 
note in tmst, or as agent for Thompson. The presiding judge, by ruling that 
the facta offered to be proved by the defendant would constitute no defense, 
left nothing upon which he could go to the jury. The verdict to which he sub- 
mitted under this ruling must, therefore, be set aside. Upon a new trial, it 
^1 he open to the plaintiff to show, if he can, that the consideration which 
failed was not the only consideration for the note, but there was another 
valuable consideration for it moving from the plaintiff to Thompson." 



196 CONSIDEBATION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTBUMENTS. § 177. 

be valid, notwithstanding the consideration between such party 
and the payee were good, if the payee knew the consideration mov- 
ing the maker were illegal. To hold otherwise would furnish an 
easy subterfuge to escape the consequences of ill^al dealings. 
Thus, where A. was indebted to B. for intoxicating liquors sold in 
violation of law, and B. was indebted to C. for a legal considera- 
tion, and A., at B.'s request, executed a note with mortgage to C, 
who knew the illegality of the debt to B., it was held that such note 
and mortgage was invalid.®* 

So, if A., for a good consideration moving from B. to him, au- 
thorizes him to draw a bill on C. to a certain amount on his (A/s) 
account, and B. draws accordingly, and C. accepts, C. will be 
absolutely bound to B., the drawer, as to any subsequent bona fide 
holder for value.®* But the consideration of the acceptance failing, 
we should think the consideration for the authority from A. to B. 
would have to be proven.®* 

If the original consideration were tainted with fraud or illegal- 
ity, or has failed in whole or in part, and the bill or note has passed 
into the hands of a bona fide holder for value without notice, vet 
if it be returned for a valuable consideration to the payee who is 
a privy to the original consideration, he could stand upon no better 
footing than if the instrument had remained in his hands.** 

§ 177. Defenses between privy parties — That the bill or note 
has been lost or stolen,^ or was executed under duress,*® or under 

63. Baker v. Collins, 9 Allen, 253. 

64. Wilson v. Crosnoe, 53 Mo. App. 241, citing text; Pillaus v. Van Mierop, 
3 Burr. 1663; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 183. 

65. Aldrieh v. Stockwell, 9 Allen, 45. 

66. Sawyer v. Wisewell, 9 Allen, 42; Kost v. Bender, 25 Mich. 516 (see po4, 
§ 805) ; Cline v. Templeton, 78 Ky. 550. 

67. Mills V. Barber, 1 M. & W. 425. 

68. Clark v. Peace, 41 N. H. 414: Griffith v. Sitgreaves, 90 Pa. St. 161. Sec 
§ 847, as to duress. \Miat is not duress, see Barnes v. Stevens, 62 Ind. 22C: 
Hullhorst V. Scharner, 15 Nebr. 57; Du Clos v. Batcheller, 17 Wash. 3S0. 49 
Pac. 483. The answer here set up the defense that the notes were procure*! 
by fraud, setting up in substance that the plaintiif for a number of years 
claimed to be a spiritualistic medium and to have supernatural power; that 
by reason of her acts and representations he had obtained an undue influence 
over defendant wlio belonged to the denomination of spiritualists, and that 
plaintiff induced defendant to believe that there were certain spirits which 
demanded that they execute the note in question for the purposes of a material- 
ization; that the notes were in fact executed for the purpose of accomplishing 
the spiritualistic object represented by plaintiff and that all of said represen- 
tations ^vere false. Held, a good and valid defense if sustained by the evi- 



§ 177. CONSIDERATION OPEN TO INQUIRY. 197 

fraudulent misrepresentations,^ or for fraudulent consideration/^ 
or for illegal consideration/^ or has been fraudulently obtained 
from an intermediate holder," or been in any way the subject of 
fraud or felony ,^^ or has been misappropriated and diverted,^"* 
or that it was given as collateral security ,^^ or for a loss for which 
party was not liable, or that otherwise it was without valuable 
consideration,^* is a good defense as between the parties privy to 
it. And in some cases that it was given by mistake for too great 
a sum, or when no sum was due, the evidence showing fraud or 
a total or partial want of consideration." The same defense 
which the defendant might make to an action by an indorsee of the 
note given by him, and the same requirement of proof may be 
made by him in an action on a renewal of a former note, both 
notes being regarded as given upon the same consideration.^® 

dence. See also City Nat. Bank v. Kusworm, 91 Wis. 166, 64 N. W. 843; 
Knott V. Tidyman, 86 Wis. 164, 56 N. W. 632; City Nat. Bank of Dayton, Ohio, 
V. Kusworm, 88 Wis. 89, 64 N. W. 843. Threat of criminal prosecution for 
money embezzled is not duress. Thorn v. Pinkham, 84 Me. 101, 24 Atl. 718, 30 . 
Am. St. Rep. 335, note; Hcnsinger v. Dyer, 147 Mo. 219, 48 S. W. 912. 

69. Vathir v. Zane, 6 Gratt. 246; Hutchinson v. Bogg, 28 Pa. St. 294. 
But not the fraudulent misrepresentations of co-obligor. Vass v. Riddick, 89 
X. C. 6; Tucker v. Roach, 139 Ind. 276, 38 N. E. 822; Union Central Life Ins. 
Co. V. Huyck, 5 Ind. App. 474, 32 N. E. 580. What constitutes fraudulent rep- 
resentations. Case of Cunyus v. Guenther, 96 Ala. 564, 11 So. 869; Haas v. 
Hall & Farley, 111 Ala. 442, 20 So. 78; American Nat. Bank v. Cruger et al., 
91 Tex- 446, 44 S. W. 278; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Owens, 81 Mo. App. 201. 

70. Rogers v. Morton, 12 Wend. 484; Leavitt v. Taylor, 163 Mo. 158. 

71. Edmonds v. Groves, 2 M. & W. 642; Bingham v. Stanley, 2 Q. B. 117; 
Shirley v. Howard, 53 111. 465; Holden v. Cosgrove, 12 Gray, 216. 

72. 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 188. 

78. Holden v. Cosgrove, 12 Gray, 216; Western Bank v. Mills, 7 Cush. 646. 

74. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Comstock, 56 N. Y. 24. 

75. Leighton v. Bowen, 75 Me. 504. 

76. Dexter Sav. Bank v. Copeland, 77 Me. 269. See State v. Hardware Co., 
147 Mo. 366, 48 S. W. 927. 

77. Forman T. Wright, 11 C. B. 481. A case where payee induced maker to 
give note for too great a sum, through mistake; Southall v. Rigg, 11 C. B. 
481. In this case nothing was due payee, and there was deception. Held^ that 
a« in Fonnan v. Wright consideration was wanting in part, here it was want- 
ing in toto. See post, § 201 ; Earle v. Robinson, 91 Hun, 363, 36 N. Y. Supp. 
178: Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Seichting, 126 Ind. 137, 25 N. E. 894; Fellers v. 
Penrod, 57 Nebr. 463, 77 N. W. 1085; Hardison v. Davis, 131 Cal. 635, 63 
Pac. 1005. 

78. First Nat. Bank of Dalton v. Black, 108 Ga. 638, 34 S. E. 143 ; Pearson 
V. Brown, 106 Ga. 802, 31 S. E. 746; McDonald v. Aufdengarten, 41 Nebr. 41, 
o9N. W. 768. See §| 179, 205. 



198 CONSIDERATION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 178. 

§ 178. ConsideratioiL af bills purchased for remission of moAey.— 

The writers upon foreign bills contemplate four parties to the 
transaction. 1. The giver of value or purchaser of the bill which 
is drawn for remittance — such purchaser desiring the draft for 
money on a foreign place being called the remitter. 2. The 
drawer of the bill. 3. The drawee abroad. 4. The payee. The 
ordinary course of dealing with reference to such foreign bills be- 
gins by the sale of the bill by the drawer to some person other 
than the payee; and it does not contemplate, therefore, that the 
consideration for the bill should necessarily move from the payee 
to the drawer, or that no person but the drawer should have a 
right to confer a title to the bill upon the payee.^® In such case 
there would be no privity between the drawer and payee, and the 
former could not plead against the latter for the want or failure 
of consideration. 

79. Munroe v. Bordier, 8 C. B. 862 (65 Eng. C. L.). In this case it was 
. held that where the purchaser or remitter in London of a foreign bill gets 
from the drawer, according to the usage in London, credit until the next 
foreign post-day for the amount, and delivers the bill to the payee, who re- 
ceives it bona fide and for value, the drawer is liable 'for the amount to the 
payee, although, in consequence of the purchaser's or remitter's failure before 
the next foreign post-day, the drawer never receives value for it. The declara- 
tion stated that A. (the defendant) made a bill of exchange, and directed it 
to B., a merchant in France, requiring him to pay the amount to the order of 
C. (the plaintiff) ; that A. delivered the bill to D., who delivered it to C; and 
that B. refused payment, etc. A. pleaded that he made and delivered the bill 
to D. for the use of C, on the faith and terms of being paid the price and 
value thereof according to the usage of merchants in that behalf; that is to 
say, on the next foreign post-day; that neither C. nor any other person, then 
or at any time before or since, paid him the said price or value of the bill, 
or any part thereof; that he never had any value or consideration for the 
making or delivery of the bill; and that C. always held and still held the 
same without any value or consideration whatever to him (A.) for the same. 
Replication that^ after the making of the bill and before it became due, D.. 
who appeared to be, and whom C. believed to be, the lawful holder, delivered 
the bill to him for a good and valuable consideration, and without notice of th" 
premises in the plea mentioned. Held, that the plea was no answer to the 
action; and that even if it were sufficient to call upon C. to show bona fidety 
he did so by his replication. In Kyd on Bills it is said the parOes to bills of 
exchange are generally foiur, two at the place where the bill is drawn and 
two at the place of payment; as where A., a merchant at Amsterdam, owe« 
money to B., .a merchant in London, instead of sending the money in specie 
to B., he applies to C another merchant in Amsterdam, to whom D., fl 
fourth person, residing in London, is indebted to an equal amount. A. p«y3 
to C. the money in question, and receives from liim a bill directed to D* 



^ 179. SUFFICIENT AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. 199 

K the bill be delivered by the drawer to the remitter upon a 
promise to pay the price next day, and the remitter, without pay- 
ing, transmit the bill to the payee, the drawer might plead no 
consideration to the suit of the latter, provided the remitter were 
liis agent.^ But if the remitter purchase the bill on credit for 
himself, and sell it in good faith to the payee, the drawer could 
not resist the payee's suit for want of consideration if the remitter 
failed to pay the purchase money.®^ Thus, if Duncan, Sherman 
& Co., of New York, being indebted to Gilliatt & Sons, of Lon- 
don, procure Fisk & Hatch, New York, to draw a bill on London, 
in favor of Gilliatt & Sons, and remit it to the latter in payment 
of the debt, the liability of Fisk & Hatch to Gilliatt & Sons will 
be absolute, whether any consideration for the drawing of tho 
bill has been paid by Duncan, Sherman & Co. or not. But if Dun- 
can, Sherman & Co. were agents of Gilliatt & Sons in purchasing 
the bill, there would then be a privity between Gilliatt & Sons 
and Fisk & Hatch, and want of consideration could be pleaded. 

SECTION IV. 

■ 

WHAT ABE SUFFICIENT AND LEGAL CONSIDEBATIONS. 

§ 179. Valuable and gpratxdtouft considerations — When it has 
been determined that the relations of the parties are such as to 
admit an inquiry into the consideration, it becomes then important 
to ascertain what is such a consideration as will support an action 
npon a negotiable instrument. A valuable consideration is neces- 

to pay the amount to B., or to any one appointed by him, who s^nds it to 
Wr correspondent B., with an order that the money be paid to him by D. 
Kyd on Bills, 3. 

80. Puget de Bras v. Forbes, 1 Esp. 117. The plaintiff resided in Holland, 
and having money in England, employed Agassiz, Rengement & Co., as his 
agents, to sell it out and to remit it to him in bills on Holland. The agents 
bought of the defendants bills on Holland in favor of the plaintiff ; and it was 
proved to be the custom of London, for persons in the habit of remitting 
foreign bills, to give the bills on one day, but not to receive the money for 
them until the next post-day. The bills were bought on February 17th, and 
the next post-day was Tuesday, February 21st. On Monday, the 20th, Agassiz, 
Rengement & Co. stopped payment, so that the defendants, in fact, never 
received any value for the bills which they had so drawn on Holland in favor 
of the plaintiff; and they having ordered their correspondent abroad not to 
pfty the bills, an action was brought against them by the plaintiffs, as 
drawers. It was held that they were not bound. 

81. Munroe v. Bordier, 8 C. B. 872 (66 Eng, C. L.) ; 2 Rob. Pr. (new ed.) 145. 



200 CONSIDERATIOX OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. § 179. 

sary to support any contract, and the rule makes no exception as 
to the character of the consideration respecting negotiable instni- 
ments when the consideration is open to inquiry. Therefore, a 
consideration founded on mere love and affection, or gratitude, is 
not sufficient to sustain a suit on a bill or note ; as, for instance, 
when a bill or note is accepted or made by a parent in favor of a 
child, or vice versa, it could not be enforced between the original 
parties, the engagement being gratuitous upon what is called a 
good, in contradistinction to a valuable, consideration.^ 

And if a note is executed and delivered with the intention of 
presenting it as a gift, and is afterward taken up and a new note 
given in its stead, the renewed note is without valuable considera- 
tion.®^ And, of course, a note given by a parent to his child durinir 
his lifetime could not be enforced after his death against his 
estate.®* 

82. Parker v. Carter, 4 Munf. 273; HiU v. Buckminster, 5 Pick. 391, over- 
ruling Bowers v. Hurd, 10 Mass. 427; Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns. 145; Pearson t. 
Pearson, 7 Johns. 26; Pennington v. Gittings, 2 Gill & J. 208; Smith v. Kil- 
tridge, 21 Vt. 238; HoUiday v. Atkinson, 5 B. & C. 501; Easton v. Praehctt, 
1 Cromp., M. & H. 798, 2 Cromp., M. & R. 542; Fuller v. Lambert, 78 Me. 
325; Story on Bills (Bennett's ed.), 181; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 179: 
Chitty on Bills (13th Am. ed.), 89; Brooks